Asexuality

[nPeace]

Starting back in the 1960's there was a Progressive push to do the opposite of any social construct that was preached by religion and the older generation. The change began with promiscuity instead of monogamy, then divorce instead of marriage, abortion instead of birth, which then led to the break up of the nuclear family. There was also the feminize movement which rightfully gave women more options. This was needed due to divorce and the broken family and the added hardships the Progressive changes cause mothers and their children.

By the 1970's and 1980's it became fashionable to be bi-sexual and homosexual instead of straight, with the AIDS appearing, killing hundreds of thousands of gay men. One was supposed to deny the cause and affect. The next stage did away with the influence of the traditional male in terms of masculine temperament and influence with children. This continues today with anything traditional male taught as being archaic and caveman. Strong male is the enemy of the left. The children get to see lopsided parents.

After that there was a push by pseudo science in colleges that said that sexual identity; male and female, as taught by religion and even science, was a social construct and not natural due to DNA. This lead to the fad of having boys plays wth dolls and girls play with trucks. Or dressing boys in dresses and girls with slacks. Mothers in broken homes and/or families with emasculated fathers, would treat their children as opposite to their biological sex, since it was assumed the social environment decided sex.

This line of experiments, by changing the social constructs, disguised as science, has led to the current state of affairs of sexual identity ambiguity. This progressive line of experiments has left many young people in the air, unable to feel grounded in nature or DNA; snowflakes. Now the same Progressive movement says that nature means more than nurture, with this final manipulated state of sexual ambiguity now called natural. The goal of the 180 degree change is not to allow another social construct, that can reverse this back to natural away from pseudo-natural.

The left has a snowflake army in psychological disarray, that it is able to control as a lock step army of parrots. They all say the same things as though programmed. Trump is an enemy of the Progressive left since he stands for everything that is old fashion male. Old fashion male was main free variable left out of the Progressive social experiment. This is the reason for the lopsided affect. Trump, by being who he is, threatens a reversal back to natural, since he shows the old fashion male element via his drive to make change and his strength to withstand constant negative propaganda without budging. He instead fights back and holds off the entire progressive army by himself. Imagine if the snowflakes learn to be so strong! The Progressive fear is the snowflake army will wake up and rebel against its keepers. It is starting in its younger leaders.

To summarize; 50 years of social experiments base on the assumption that all aspects of human behavior was social construct, and not natural, created an evolving social construct propaganda that created the modern state of affairs of emasculated males and sexual ambiguity. Now a 180 degree turn is being attempted that says nature is more important nurture, with this current unnatural result of social conditioning, now called natural. However, since it is not natural, the young people feel no grounding inside themselves but need others to tell them how to feel grounded; need external reinforcement. This has results in a lock step zombie army that cannot think logically like a male since this is taboo. On a positive note, Trump is causing a disturbance in the force and the dark side is nervous.

Thank you. Very informative.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Post #20 may have been full of information, but it would be better if some of it were factually correct, rather than mere gross misinterpretation.

 

[Vinayaka]

I know by posting this i may get a few comments that I disagree with but here goes:Asexuality is where someone does not experience sexual attraction.I am Asexual and panromantic.I could be romantic attracted to any gender.I was wondering what are some people views on Asexuality?Is it legit?do you think people like this are less then human?More on asexuality here: Overview | The Asexual Visibility and Education Network | asexuality.org

I think asexuality falls within the range and diversity of human sexuality. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like homosexuality, asexuality is not favored by natural selection in that both conditions make one less likely to reproduce.

I give a single **** about being concerned about fulfilling some abstract idea, why exactly? That's no different than insisting the goal in life is reproducing and it's something everyone yearns for even though there are those of us who have no desires or urges to have kids. With either idea, there is no "ghost of Darwin" to punish people, nothing of natural selection to shame them into something else, and not a care or concern in the universe if an organism reproduces or not. At most, legions of people who do not try to understand or accept such a position will keep insisting we'll change our minds or "just haven't met the right person." That's not a cosmic law, but the view of a dumbed down society with such small ambition and drive that something we've been doing for thousands of years and organisms have been doing for billions of years is viewed as a pinnacle achievement in life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By the 1970's and 1980's it became fashionable to be bi-sexual and homosexual instead of straight

During the 90s not even California was that warm to the LGBT community, and still today many in the older generations keep that information private while the younger generations are pretty open about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To summarize; 50 years of social experiments base on the assumption that all aspects of human behavior was social construct, and not natural, created an evolving social construct propaganda that created the modern state of affairs of emasculated males and sexual ambiguity. Now a 180 degree turn is being attempted that says nature is more important nurture, with this current unnatural result of social conditioning, now called natural. However, since it is not natural, the young people feel no grounding inside themselves but need others to tell them how to feel grounded; need external reinforcement. This has results in a lock step zombie army that cannot think logically like a male since this is taboo. On a positive note, Trump is causing a disturbance in the force and the dark side is nervous.

Spoken like someone with little knowledge of psychology and no experience in the field who yet still insists they know about it and know what's going on in the brain. "Cannot think logically like a male?" They have male brains, male hormones, male identity, how are they not thinking like males? But first it must be addressed how do males think? What does the typical male think and how does he think it?

 

[Axe Elf]

I give a single **** about being concerned about fulfilling some abstract idea, why exactly? That's no different than insisting the goal in life is reproducing and it's something everyone yearns for even though there are those of us who have no desires or urges to have kids. With either idea, there is no "ghost of Darwin" to punish people, nothing of natural selection to shame them into something else, and not a care or concern in the universe if an organism reproduces or not. At most, legions of people who do not try to understand or accept such a position will keep insisting we'll change our minds or "just haven't met the right person." That's not a cosmic law, but the view of a dumbed down society with such small ambition and drive that something we've been doing for thousands of years and organisms have been doing for billions of years is viewed as a pinnacle achievement in life.

All true, but completely beside the point. In natural selection, there is no "goal," no "yearning," no "punishment," no "shame"; natural selection favors only those traits or adaptations that make an individual more likely to reproduce, and traits or adaptations that make an individual less likely to reproduce (such as homosexuality and asexuality) are not favored by natural selection--which of course was my original statement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All true, but completely beside the point. In natural selection, there is no "goal," no "yearning," no "punishment," no "shame"; natural selection favors only those traits or adaptations that make an individual more likely to reproduce, and traits or adaptations that make an individual less likely to reproduce (such as homosexuality and asexuality) are not favored by natural selection--which of course was my original statement.

Things "unfavored" by natural selection are frequently and often passed on. Trying to say reproduction is any sort of goal due to natural selection is like saying that falling down is a goal because of gravity.
Natural selection is nothing more than a term we use to describe how a species adapts and evolves. There is no goal, no favors, no reason to reproduce beyond continuing the species. There are traits that enhance chances of survival and reproduction--and thus passing these features down--but these features may not get inherited, death before reproduction may still happen, and of course characteristics that are detrimental to survival are not inherently eliminated from the gene pool, just as beneficial traits do not inherently become the norm within a species. It can, and does, go both ways with natural selection being nothing more than a term that describes that impersonal and faceless process.

 

[Axe Elf]

Things "unfavored" by natural selection are frequently and often passed on. Trying to say reproduction is any sort of goal due to natural selection is like saying that falling down is a goal because of gravity.
Natural selection is nothing more than a term we use to describe how a species adapts and evolves. There is no goal, no favors, no reason to reproduce beyond continuing the species. There are traits that enhance chances of survival and reproduction--and thus passing these features down--but these features may not get inherited, death before reproduction may still happen, and of course characteristics that are detrimental to survival are not inherently eliminated from the gene pool, just as beneficial traits do not inherently become the norm within a species. It can, and does, go both ways with natural selection being nothing more than a term that describes that impersonal and faceless process.

Yeah, that's what I said--twice now.

In natural selection, there is no "goal," no "yearning," no "punishment," no "shame"; natural selection favors only those traits or adaptations that make an individual more likely to reproduce, and traits or adaptations that make an individual less likely to reproduce (such as homosexuality and asexuality) are not favored by natural selection--which of course was my original statement.

Glad we agree, but I don't understand why you would follow up your first irrelevant post with a restatement of what I've just said in regards to it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Glad we agree, but I don't understand why you would follow up your first irrelevant post with a restatement of what I've just said in regards to it.

We don't agree. This "natural selection favors" idea doesn't work and there is a complete lack of any "correcting mechanism" to eliminate traits that are detrimental to survival and no "protective barriers" to ensure beneficial traits are passed on. Natural selection favors and disfavors nothing. It does absolutely nothing more than describe how evolution occurs in a natural setting. Certain traits are better for survival, and those do have a better chance of being passed on due to the organism having better chances at living long enough to reach maturation and find a mate, but natural selection is utterly disinterested and offers and provides absolutely nothing to uphold the notion that natural selection favors or disfavors anything. Survival, yes. Naturally reproducing is ****ing in the bushes. And of course there are too many species with fatal mating routines to believe that natural selection shows any favor upon anything.
Edited to add:
And also consider my views that people with certain genetic disorders be encouraged to not reproduced tends to not be well received and viewed as radical, extreme, unfair, and not good. Clearly, people don't care if those with cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease reproduce even though those disorders are detrimental to survival and are inherited disorders.

 

[crossfire]

Like homosexuality, asexuality is not favored by natural selection in that both conditions make one less likely to reproduce.

When natural selection fails, you are left with conscious (as opposed to unconscious) selection.

 

[Axe Elf]

We don't agree. This "natural selection favors" idea doesn't work and there is a complete lack of any "correcting mechanism" to eliminate traits that are detrimental to survival and no "protective barriers" to ensure beneficial traits are passed on. Natural selection favors and disfavors nothing. It does absolutely nothing more than describe how evolution occurs in a natural setting. Certain traits are better for survival, and those do have a better chance of being passed on due to the organism having better chances at living long enough to reach maturation and find a mate, but natural selection is utterly disinterested and offers and provides absolutely nothing to uphold the notion that natural selection favors or disfavors anything. Survival, yes. Naturally reproducing is ****ing in the bushes. And of course there are too many species with fatal mating routines to believe that natural selection shows any favor upon anything.

But we do agree. You're just trying to extrapolate from the use of the word "favors" to some kind of sentience behind the process of natural selection, where there is none--which is where we agree. But just because there is no ultimate goal or purpose or sentience behind traits that are "favored" does not mean that the use of the word is inappropriate. Google the term "natural selection favors" and you will find all manner of academic instances of it. Darwin himself titled his seminal 1859 book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

So, once again, natural selection favors those traits or adaptations that make an individual more likely to reproduce, and traits or adaptations that make an individual less likely to reproduce (such as homosexuality and asexuality) are not favored by natural selection--and again, we're back at my original statement.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

All true, but completely beside the point. In natural selection, there is no "goal," no "yearning," no "punishment," no "shame"; natural selection favors only those traits or adaptations that make an individual more likely to reproduce, and traits or adaptations that make an individual less likely to reproduce (such as homosexuality and asexuality) are not favored by natural selection--which of course was my original statement.

And I say again this misses some of the nuance...that evolution isn't necessarily entirely the result of "individual" reproduction or lack thereof. It's one thing to produce offspring, quite another to get them raised to adulthood so that they, too, can reproduce. And that's key.

Look, there is really quite solid evidence that most homosexual males are younger brothers to an older brother. If there is some gene expression that gives an older brother a gay younger brother who not only doesn't want to go hunting or fighting, but would prefer to stay home with the girls, and yet who is also male, bigger, stronger and can provide protection for offspring when the studs are away, that could very well help get the studs' offspring to maturity. In other words, it could very well be a heritable factor that does not involve directly creating offspring of their own.

 

[DustyFeet]

The left has a snowflake army

isn't there a snow-flake hymn that's said in some churches...

 

[wellwisher]

And I say again this misses some of the nuance...that evolution isn't necessarily entirely the result of "individual" reproduction or lack thereof. It's one thing to produce offspring, quite another to get them raised to adulthood so that they, too, can reproduce. And that's key.

Look, there is really quite solid evidence that most homosexual males are younger brothers to an older brother. If there is some gene expression that gives an older brother a gay younger brother who not only doesn't want to go hunting or fighting, but would prefer to stay home with the girls, and yet who is also male, bigger, stronger and can provide protection for offspring when the studs are away, that could very well help get the studs' offspring to maturity. In other words, it could very well be a heritable factor that does not involve directly creating offspring of their own.

What you are saying may be true but this does not involve a transfer of DNA to the offspring. This suggests homosexual is learned and psychological in origin. The homosexual involvement in the up bringing of children will train the next generation to become more homosexual. If homosexuals were more introverted and less flamboyant the training would be far more limited.

In current science, our DNA is not assumed to be pliable using the mind. However, the mind and willpower can induce epigenetic changes, which means modifications of the genetic expression coming from the foundational DNA. However, when it is time to reproduce, the foundational DNA is the only thing that is passed on. The secondary or epigenetic layer is not, but has to be build from scratch through learning.

For example, if I practice hard to become a musician, this does not become part of my foundational DNA. The DNA is very conservative. This new behavior can become an epigenetic change that is like a layer on top of the DNA. This top layer impacts genetic expression to it can seem to be genetic in origin.

When I reproduce to make offspring, the top layer is not reproduced. Only the base DNA is replicated. The next generation has to practice to develop the secondary layer. However, since I, as the father, learned to become a musician, over many years, I can make it easier for the next generation. I can coach and show short cuts and tricks to build the secondary layer faster. They can learn faster by my coaching.This is how homosexuals and mothers develops the next generation of homosexuals. Even left wing culture is part of the accelerated education. One would expect the numbers to grow. Asexual is all about coaching since this is not part of the foundational DNA but is an epigenetic layer that appears second nature.

 

[DustyFeet]

The homosexual involvement in the up bringing of children will train the next generation to become more homosexual

respectfully, i think you're wrong. but i have no facts to prove it

i'm flamboyant on purpose sometimes, to draw out bullies

and i'm super-duper hetro

there's a method to my maddness

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What you are saying may be true but this does not involve a transfer of DNA to the offspring. This suggests homosexual is learned and psychological in origin. The homosexual involvement in the up bringing of children will train the next generation to become more homosexual. If homosexuals were more introverted and less flamboyant the training would be far more limited.

This suggests that you have misunderstood what I said. And it does so because you don't understand that genes are the only thing happening...but that gene expression (whether one turns on or off) can depend on other things...for example what's happening in the mother's body. Read on...

In current science, our DNA is not assumed to be pliable using the mind. However, the mind and willpower can induce epigenetic changes, which means modifications of the genetic expression coming from the foundational DNA. However, when it is time to reproduce, the foundational DNA is the only thing that is passed on. The secondary or epigenetic layer is not, but has to be build from scratch through learning.

You are missing a really important, and possibly likely, factor. Everything that happens to us changes us somehow. A mother who gives birth to a boy has her immune system altered by the very presence of that son in her body. Her immune system responds to its presence, and that altered immune system can have an effect on gene expression in a second male child she carries. No thinking, no mind, involved. Just nature achieving its own ends through natural selection, just more complex than the simple evolution we're taught in high school.

For example, if I practice hard to become a musician, this does not become part of my foundational DNA. The DNA is very conservative. This new behavior can become an epigenetic change that is like a layer on top of the DNA. This top layer impacts genetic expression to it can seem to be genetic in origin.

I hope you can see how this is different than what I just described above, which tries to show that gene expression can be affected by the environment (the mother) in which that gene is left to work its wonders.

When I reproduce to make offspring, the top layer is not reproduced. Only the base DNA is replicated. The next generation has to practice to develop the secondary layer. However, since I, as the father, learned to become a musician, over many years, I can make it easier for the next generation. I can coach and show short cuts and tricks to build the secondary layer faster. They can learn faster by my coaching.This is how homosexuals and mothers develops the next generation of homosexuals. Even left wing culture is part of the accelerated education. One would expect the numbers to grow. Asexual is all about coaching since this is not part of the foundational DNA but is an epigenetic layer that appears second nature.

And now you are describing something else altogether, which has nothing to do with what I've been trying to explain.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I know by posting this i may get a few comments that I disagree with but here goes:Asexuality is where someone does not experience sexual attraction.I am Asexual and panromantic.I could be romantic attracted to any gender.I was wondering what are some people views on Asexuality?Is it legit?do you think people like this are less then human?More on asexuality here: Overview | The Asexual Visibility and Education Network | asexuality.org

I believe its real, yes although I'm not asexual. I think that one group I heard of at a university supports asexual people but also includes anyone who feels disinterested for whatever reason, so they allow more than exact by the book asexuals. They will accept people who are just burned out, don't feel really into pursuing love for whatever reason, aren't sure. There are lots of reasons that people don't pursue relationships, but society does not usually grasp this. Usually society has a standard relationship model that it tries to move everyone towards. There is generally an expectation that you are in a relationship. I've actually had people at work get frustrated with me for not being in a relationship as if I were doing some kind of evil. People are social, and they want to know who is interested in whom and why or why not. They want you to declare. Teachers will hit on students, and bosses on employees and subordinates on bosses. Ronald McDonald may pinch your butt. You just can't get away from sexual tension generally. It affects everything, including your grades and paycheck.

I think religions provide some of the only neutral ways to meet people where there are no sexual expectations. For example if there are strict rules about marriage, and if you meet people who are serious about that then they will have zero expectations of you sexually when you are near married people. You just don't encounter that in most other places. Religions are no guarantee of this, but they sometimes provide a way to be asexual and still a part of a community. I don't know of other communities that can provide that kind of support. Strange, but it seems like in this category the cults win though I am not endorsing cults. It seems (to me) everywhere I go that there are always sexual tensions and rivalries -- except for in specific religious situations and not in all of them. I mean I did get my butt pinched in a prayer meeting once.

As an asexual you're going to have to be a third wheel sometimes. You're going to have friends who are in happy relationships, and you're going to be in the back seat. You should realize its going to take a little extra energy for you to stay in touch with people, too. If you can make it your job to keep friends in touch with each other. Be a good third wheel if you have to be one.