Thanks to Magnetic Mary's blog, I've discovered that I may be an "asexual". I had no idea such a concept existed.
Here's an article in New Scientist about it.
Coilin asks:
Re: "I've discovered that I may be an "asexual". I had no idea such a concept existed."
I am very puzzled by this statement. You write that you 'may' be an asexual. So, are you an asexual or not? Surely you know, one way or another?
I have read the New Scientist article, and in it it says that some 'asexuals' have sex with partners. What I don't understand is, how do they do this if they are male, as it requires physical arousal? If they are aroused by a female, how can they be asexual?
Of course, the most incredible thing about all this is that you produce DOMAI, a self-proclaimed 'dirty old man' website on which stunning images of delectable women in flagrante are posted daily.
I cannot imagine how you would spend so much time on a website like this, to great effect I might add, unless you spent a lot of your time fantasising about beautiful women, searching high and low for them, photographing them, and trying to get into bed with them. You very clearly know beauty when you see it.
I imagine you working by day but trawling streets, cafés and bars at night, seducing beautiful women and convincing them that a visit to your photographic studio would be in their interest, and that a quickie on your couch would see them jumping several rungs on the ladder to fame in the world of 'glamour' photography. (Of course I know that the photos are by others, but I'm sure you've taken your fair share.)
So, what's the explanation? How could you be so interested in beautiful women if you are not interested in getting the leg over? I could understand it if DOMAI was simply a business and nothing more. But even then, I'd be very surprised at someone getting into that business unless they had more than a passing interest in beautiful women.
You're quite right about the last bit.
I get strongly emotionally stimulated by beautiful women. But I very rarely get aroused sexually by them.
I hope to understand the mechanism one day. It can be very frustrating to have this abstract, but intense, attraction and then not to have an outlet for it.
I've tried sex, and it doesn't do it for me, I lose interest real damn fast. Which also hurts the partner, of course, she thinks something is the matter with her since I lose interest.
---
About the "surely you know" bit: well, it's all very confusing, both the me and to others. It's a new field.
56 comments:
As a person who is apolitical and polyagnostic I can understand the "A" factor. As the BBC article said, there are no a-football groups, but when you have no sport you are certainly excluded.
I was a late bloomer, and know the social pressures associated with such, and I had friends who just never seemed to be interested, the term used was "just not/doesn't seem interested", asexual would have seemed a terrible term to use in our claustrophobic little town. Thankfully I live in a wider world now.
I can see there are times when a persons body chemistry shifts them to asexual, stress, fatigue hormones can all tilt a person to a low sex drive. In Jeanette Wintertons "Written on the body" the lead character was just the opposite, through an illness they were awash with hormones. I am not denying permanent asexuality, just observing.
I can see how the romantic drive factor kicks in. I have had occasions where I've felt great romantic attraction, but no sexual, and vice versa.
A related topic which cropped up the other day is androgyny. There is stylistic androgyny, and there seems to be a physical androgyny. I was surprised that didn't show in the article, but then again, neither did trans-gender. However, the article was discussing sexuality rather than gender.
Here's a side note. Asexual behaviour cannot always be detected. The article went on about how people are always talking about sex. In our Halls of Residence at Uni it was months before some of my friends realized I had no girlfriend. I just had that confident, quiet air of "girl back home" apparently. How weird.
A is a feminine phoneme. The names of most continents both start and end with an 'a'. Continents therefore are very feminine things.
I say asexual denotes a male. A female asexual is properly referred to as asexuela.
I am what many might refer to as atheistic. But, as Jonathan Miller reminds us, there isn't a word for people who don't believe in witches (acovenistic?), why should there be a word that people who don't believe in God should have to use?
Similarly, I'd suggest to Eolake, he not adopt the label which is perhaps foisted on him by the majority group in their need to qualify him as NOT a member of their accepted categories. If you don't share the majority's drives, why should you have to use the majority's words to describe your own drives? A left-handed person is not a-right-handed. A person who lives in the USA and yet prefers European football over American is not an a-NFL-o-phile. An Inuit from Tuktayuktuk is not a-warm.
I'm an asexual. I'm an adult virgin and the idea of sex is completely bizarre to me. I love women, but the thought of having sex with any of them never crosses my mind. I was utterly confused about my sexuality for years, having been conditioned by a society obsessed with sex. I knew I wasn't gay, but I knew I wasn't normal. I still have a hard time believing that men think about sex all day long--I only think about it when it's shoved in my face. When I finally realized I was an asexual, it was like a huge weight fell off of my shoulders. Years of conditioning just dropped away in an instant. If asexuality is a label, so be it. It's liberating to know the truth.
As a side note, despite having no sex drive, I love looking at pictures of nude women. I wonder if asexuals are able to see beauty with less distortion.
I think in the "sexual" community we can see the difference between arousing and simply beautiful. Of course there will be beauty that embraces sexuality, and arousal. Ones perspective varies with ones bodies readiness for sex. If you are already heading in that direction, even a hint of flesh can drive you over the edge. Other times you can watch the most libidinous scene in a film, and not be touched yourself.
Sure, we have been told endlessly that nudity and sexual response are intimately related, but they are not. Sexy is sexy, nude is nude, sometimes they come together.
So, yes, lost in the moment, you will be blinded to beauty. But at that time your body is getting something else. It's like listening to music as part of a film/play/opera, and listening to music in a darkened room. Same music, but sometimes you can't hear it over the visual stimulation.
As a side note, despite having no sex drive, I love looking at pictures of nude women.
May I ask you're age?
I am 27, and physically and psychologically healthy. I just wanted to clear up the comment I made earlier--I don't mean to sound elitist; I just noticed that most men seem so easily deceived by makeup, tight clothing, sexual behaviors, and the like, and often ignore the most beautiful girls. Also, I once subscribed to an erotic nude site which featured a ranking system for the models, and the highest voted models were not the most beautiful girls by a long shot, but rather the girls who were the most... how should I put it... demonstrative. I cannot help but conclude that the sexual drive affects one's perceptions. Granted, some are better at looking beyond it, but it's there.
I'm glad to hear from you, Jeremy. Do go on.
DOMAI, in retrospect, is very much an asexual site.
Eolake said:
"DOMAI, in retrospect, is very much an asexual site."
That may be the intention, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of your members do not agree. ;-)
Oh, the majority, surely.
But I don't complain, they pay the bills.
Eolake said:
"But I don't complain, they pay the bills."
That's the important thing! :-)
To me, DOMAI is very sexual. I know it's not INTENDED that way, and I've read plenty of Eolake's commentary here and on his other sites to know what's going on with the distinctions between "beauty" and "sexual allure." I'd think a DOMAI type site could be created that didn't depict solely female models but that nevertheless participated in those same aesthetic aims.
Nevertheless, inside my own head, I can't perceive any beauty devoid of its sexuality if it's wrapped in a young female. I can see beauty in a lot of things that aren't young females -- paintings, architecture, even abstract concepts like this question I'm working on for the LSAT. But when young females are in front of me, I can't assess by means of those more asexual standards of beauty. That's what is in my head, there's no changing it.
I sometimes bridle at suggestions (as has been hinted at in this thread) that I'm "missing something" and therefore "should" try to look at the naked human female form in terms of the generalized, less sexual, more abstract (is that the right word?) standards of beauty that I am clearly capable of using. But no, I don't think I "should." I think instead I (and politically correct people the world over) "should" understand that plenty of this thinking is simply hard-wired. I'm not going to be ABLE to distance myself from sexual allure, and anyway there's no advantage to it. Why try to be someone I'm not?
For a lot of my youth, I was excoriated by the PC crowd, that my interest in only finding a certain set of female characteristics to be attractive was inherently sexist. I can't figure out the reasoning there. Evidently, if I find young females (particularly, the slender ones with certain culturally accepted and probably biologically programmed markers of desirability) attractive to me sexually, I therefore hate all females as a group and must learn to grow up and try harder to be less immature. It simply doesn't follow. So I lost a lot of time trying to figure that out, or trying to cooperate with the nefarious aims of the PC crowd. Eventually I realized theirs was a self-serving political stance, not one designed to reflect or observe reality or decency. Not a lot of hot skinny chicks tell you that you shouldn't find them sexy because of their hotness or skinniness.
I concede, that for OTHER people, sexuality, skinniness, hotness, beauty, can all be much more divergent concepts. I basically can't do it. I have seen some pictures that put it all together into an asexual whole -- those abstract B&Ws that look at lumpy human forms and ripples almost obscured by the fact that they're out of proportion, or cropped so as to misrepresent what part of the body. Often depicted next to similar lumps in vegetables or wild animals. I see the line and form, the shape and counter-shape, the negative space and positive space, sure. But when I CAN recognize that the subject matter is a young human female, I INSTANTLY need to be able to assess her viability as a sexual partner visually. I can't just go, "Yeah, she's beautiful but I'd never want to have sex with her." That's an oxymoron in my mind. Nor can I just go, "Yeah, she's beautiful. Oh, and lookit that, sex never occurred to me." That's not me either.
Psychology tells us that man is an animal governed by only a handful of primal drives: fear, hunger, need for reproduction, gregarious ("herd") instinct, etc.
Philosophers have speculated that what differentiates man from animal is precisely the ability to rise above the animal condition.
Although I certainly wish I could discard the psychological blabber in favor of the philosopher's views, it is certain that I cannot do so in all honesty when I look at people around me...
But the bottom line is that, although shrinks will surely label such a deviance as a disease of some sort, I prefer to think of the dissociation from primal drives as a sign of evolution!
Not that I am calling anyone a primate... ;)
So...Eolake runs a site where he repeatedly talks about how it's possible to view nude women without erotic thoughts. Of course it's possible--for him. You know, this really explains a lot; For months I've been reading the site and thinking "Something about all this just doesn't make sense to me". Now I know what it is--Eolake was unconsciously assuming everyone else felt as asexual as himself.
Of course, I'm not angry or anything...heck, I don't care how often or rarely you think about sex. ;)
Bert said...
"But the bottom line is that, although shrinks will surely label such a deviance as a disease of some sort, I prefer to think of the dissociation from primal drives as a sign of evolution!"
In that case, asexuals are the highest evolved human beings! The future of the human race is extinction due to lack of libido! In all seriousness, for a sexual person to completely separate himself from his sexual urges is to deny who he really is. The consequences can also be disastrous--look at all the cases of sexual abuse by priests. On the other hand, if one has little to no sex drive, he might as well accept that as part of who he is. I do view my asexuality as a gift. I don't feel like I'm missing anything, I'm not distracted by bizarre urges or burdened by the guilt associated with those urges, and I don't have to worry about STDs, unwanted children, and bad relationships only based on sex.
"Eolake was unconsciously assuming everyone else felt as asexual as himself."
That's possible.
But it can also just be what many of us do often: promoting our own viewpoint.
And I would like to point out that I get many letters from people who are very happy to find others of the same mind, or who have learned something from the site.
It's estimated that 1% of the population is asexual. I'm willing to bet that more than 1% of DOMAI members fit into that category.
"I don't have to worry about STDs, unwanted children, and bad relationships only based on sex."
That's not insignificant. Though one might think of loneliness, I don't think a sex-based relationship cures this.
And a marriage I had considered one of the best I knew, just broke up. Turns out I did not know he had been cheating on her for over a decade, and they were nowhere near as happy as I thought.
Obviously, a really good romantic relationship is invaluable. I imagine.
In my mind I'm in love with my LSAT tutor. She is brilliant (naturally) and has the non-frivolous point of view about life that I find quite valuable in juxtaposition to what we in Western (North American) society usually teach and expect our young women to value.
But the relationship only exists in my mind. I'm delighted with it. I think I don't want to mess with it too much. :)
Final Identity said...
"why should there be a word that people who don't believe in God should have to use?"
Given the extent of religious thinking in most societies, I think the answer to your question would be "peer pressure". ;-)
"An Inuit from Tuktayuktuk is not a-warm."
You, sir, are just a dangerous a-majoritarian! And an a-merry-can of unspecified contents. (Whatever that means. I just made it up to sound insulting.)
Jeremy said...
"I still have a hard time believing that men think about sex all day long"
Dang! Does this mean I'm asexual too? Or just a-horny?
I've never felt the need to frown on non-sex-obsessed people or life-long virgins, provided they're in harmony with themselves. (The other type needs therapy to resolve their issues.) But honestly, living without sexual attraction to women doesn't seem to fit me either.
So much for becoming an aconfused...
"I only think about it when it's shoved in my face."
You, sir, are a dangerous astigmat a-puritan! A threat to all upstanding bigoted societies. Let's burn him with alacrity!
Alex said...
I think in the "sexual" community we can see the difference between arousing and simply beautiful.
And you, YOU sir, are a terribly dangerous a-pervert! Honestly, you people will be the end of civilized barbary as we know it.
Sheesh, if I'm so a-lone, I give up!
"Sexy is sexy, nude is nude, sometimes they come together."
Watching Basic Instinct not long ago, I couldn't help but think, in the middle of the sex scenes, just how beautiful Sharon Stone's perfect "lower back" was. It was almost distracting me from the eroticism of the scene. What a woman! What an a-natomy! What an a... what a behind! What feminine assets! ;-)
I think I'm not the least bit asexual. But either the a-verage world is sex-obsessed and I'm in control of my instincts (even the BASIC ones) instead of the other way round, or I'm hyposexual compared to the "normal" neanderthal.
My apologies to Aces if I seem like a renegade or a blood-traitor. Hey, some things you just can't help. ;-)
"Those asexuals who do have sex or masturbate do not think about people during the act; some enjoy the sensation, some have a fetish, and some just let their minds wander and work out what tomorrow's dinner will be or when the car should next be serviced."
Now, THAT is just too darn explicit! It's plain sick! Obscene! This last part should have been censored from the article. :-D
Cooking dinner? Car servicing? Puh-leeze, how obvious is THAT to any Playboy Channel viewer? Jee, now I need a cold shower.
P.S.: No direct relation, Eolake, but I feel you might enjoy having a cat. Sincere and asexual affection, perfect for an unconventional person such as you.
I believe it has been pointed out enough that Domai is, practically, "not a sexual site". It doesn't try to be specifically "asexual" either. That's the niche of softcore nudes, to spend great efforts in showing nothing sexual.
"DOMAI" is its own label.
Final, I think your most fitting label would something around "normally healthy". Basically, you're neither priapic nor anally retentive. So deal with it. Or don't. (I'm not sure exactly. Does one have to deal with an a-problem?)
The sex drive is natural, when not grotesquely hypertrophied or artificially atrophied. Artificially, as in, uptight prudes, who are in a way the opposite of asexuals: "We think about it all the time, but always while remembering it's supremely disgusting."
I think nobody hates asexuals more than the prudes. It's a terrible threat to their whole thought system.
Bert,
Nicely said. I don't recall seeing your name before, but I already like the way you think.
John said...
"heck, I don't care how often or rarely you think about sex."
I like the way YOU think too.
Jeremy, rising above one's instincts absolutely doesn't mean supressing them! Only that the intelligence will make the calls.
Which is why I'm so undecided about my own categorization. I'm very interested in sex, and yet capable of separating it from nudity or circumstances. Perhaps studying Medicine does that to you, otherwise all male gynaecologists would be very dangerous people to rely on for a diagnosis! :-)
Back on topic, being "evolved" doesn't mean to me separating anything. On the contrary, it means reaching harmony, without becoming either a robotic brain or a drooling animal. We are, both at once, animalistic in nature and the highest thinking beings. We're poet carnivores, violent lovers, passionate thinkers. It's absolutely terrifying... and infinitely fascinating!
Rogue priests are, quite simply, the proof that you cannot arbitrarily decree asexuality and declare that "you can divert all this energy toward God". (Which sounds more than a little ambiguous anyway!)
Most religions, including many branches of Christiannism like the Orthodox, are perfectly okay with priests marrying. I think it's RECOMMENDED for rabbis. Basic sense, if you ask me. An ideal priest should be the most human person of the community. Not a bundle of complexes and frustrations imposed by an 2000-year-old dusty tradition nowhere mentioned in the Gospel.
Just a few days ago, I saw a report on the news, originally about pedophiles. The report followed a non-delinquent hypersexual man. He had never assaulted anyone, or craved for child flesh like some modern ogre, but his whole life had been plagued by uncontrollable sexual urges. At 52 (i think), he decided to undergo a surgical castration, which, by his own words, immensely relieved him.
There are extremes in sexual tonus. Just like in appetite, producing bulimia or anorexia. Except that, with asexuality, the only negative(?) consequence will be absence of reproduction. Nothing detrimental to the individual whatsoever.
Nothing to make news headlines about. ;-)
Eolake said...
["I don't have to worry about STDs, unwanted children, and bad relationships only based on sex."]
That's not insignificant.
That is VERY significant, indeed. How many lives have been ruined by NOT being a hopeless libertine or skirt-chaser?
Besides, the articles in your original post state that asexuals may very well fall in romantic love, get married, and even bear with sex to have children. They'll just never make "it" the center of their life. It can be immensely relieving.
Nice to hear that there ARE men who think with their upper organ for a change. :-)
In an erotic novel I read years ago, a woman reporter said to a scandal-involved politician: "You look at women through your penis, as if it were a periscope." I do believe that wasn't a compliment made to the old perv.
"I believe it has been pointed out enough that Domai is, practically, "not a sexual site". It doesn't try to be specifically "asexual" either."
You may have a point.
Except if we define asexual as "abstract-sexual".
I dunno ... why are most of the models' shaved? Armpits and other parts? Isn't that part of the acculturated Western preference for "young looking" sexual partners, and not part of a more abstract notion of beauty devoid of sexuality?
Just a talking point. I'm not advocating for or against any of the above ...
I don't know. I'm always asking for more non-shaved models. But 90% come like that.
I honestly don't think it's a youth-thing, but rather that it's an exhibitionist thing. And fashion.
Eolake said...
Except if we define asexual as "abstract-sexual".
Mister, I have a suspicion you're just trying to play on words. You trying to be a-musing?
I agree that this widespread fashion for shaving is just as abstract as tattoos. There's nothing wrong with Nature's original design, it's perfect!
(And I'm not "just saying that because Lebanese girls are all hairy beasts with handlebar mustaches". That would actually be the description of our bus drivers. ;-)
Pascal said:
"because Lebanese girls are all hairy beasts with handlebar mustaches". That would actually be the description of our bus drivers"
Besides, everybody knows that Lebanese girls stopped wearing their mustaches in that style years ago. Since, like, 2004. The "toothbrush" style is all the rage these days!
Well, I could point to other aspects of DOMAI and the "simple nudes" movement as being sexual rather than asexual. The shaving is one tip-off for me; another is that the models have feminine features inevitably. No larger women, no women with thick eyebrows or overly square jaws, so on. I think you know what I'm getting at. For me, to try to pretend that my response to DOMAI is strictly abstract and artistic, rather than imbued with a SIGNIFICANT portion of sexuality, is just to try not to talk about a giant pink elephant in the room. It's there.
Well, as with many good things, people have widely varied reactions to it.
Pascal, I'm often just playing with words, but not in this instance. I tend to view many things in an abstract way. It makes some people view me as a weirdo, but that's life.
...when he heard of Pascal's comment There's nothing wrong with Nature's original design, it's perfect!:
If your statement were true there wouldn't be evolution.
I'd replace "always adapting to the environment" for "perfect"
F.I. said:
"The shaving is one tip-off for me; another is that the models have feminine features inevitably. No larger women, no women with thick eyebrows or overly square jaws, so on."
I have to agree. Personally I'm not sure that it is possible to appreciate that kind of beauty without it being sexual - if I've understood F.I. correctly. If not, then that's just my personal opinion. Anthropology backs me up, though.
As for these larger women, women with thick eyebrows or overly square jaws - if you're into that, try Leonard Nimoy's photography.
"Anthropology backs me up, though."
Well, if only 1% is asexual, and if the majority hides it for social pressure reasons, then the rest would easily have been explained away as being dysfunctional.
I don't see shaving as necessarily sexual. The pubic hair has a couple of sexual functions, actually. It acts as a sexual signal, showing a woman is sexually mature, and it also acts as a scent trap, gathering and intensifying the natural pheromones secreted in that region of the body. So, while some may view shaving as licentious because the vagina is more exposed, it can also be seen as an aesthetic and hygienic choice, reducing the emphasis on sex. Most art over the centuries, especially statues, has depicted the female body as totally hairless. As Eolake pointed out, shaving is a fashion. Women have been modifying their body hair for centuries, and inevitably the natural look will cycle back into favor.
The issue of the feminine appearance of the models is more complex. True, the majority of the women appearing on DOMAI appear to be at the peak sexual age, the late teens. They also, by and large, have symmetrical features, clear skin, long hair, thin waists and wide hips--all the classic signs that modern anthropology has declared to be advantageous in attracting a mate. Sex would seem to be determining aesthetics in the human animal.
So why do those of us without an impulse to mate find these same attributes aesthetically pleasing? Perhaps the perception of human beauty is hard-wired into human beings from birth. Of course, one's experiences in life also modify their perception of beauty, causing some to prefer different variations, but the general framework is already established. Children seem to have a preference for beautiful people long before they reach puberty. So, I don't think the sexual impulse determines aesthetic preference. Aesthetic preference seems to be inborn, is modified by one's experiences, and during puberty the sexual impulse joins whatever has been created.
Thus, I believe the women on DOMAI are not necessarily sexual.
I think symmetry is a persistant part of beauty in all fields. Lopsided just doesn't work.
Consider the larger dump trucks put out by Caterpiller for the last umpteen decades. Now look at a newer Volvo design (actually, this page with a traditional Perlini and Volvo A30D illutstrates my point).
The big difference between the two basic styles are symetry and smoothness. The new Volvos have long curved lines, the older trucks had boxes upon boxes. The Volvo carries grace, you should see these puppies in action, and the Cat shows strength and power, functionality and grandeur.
It's the same in architecture symmetry is pleasing, asymmetry being more fun if it's a building that evolved through the ages, but hard to get to work in a new building.
And in automotive design, the smooth curves win, take a look at the new 2008 Scion XB/Yaris BB and compare it with it predecessor.
Why is a cougar more beautiful than a warthog? Why is a willow more attractive than a scrubby oak?
There was a Domai model who was hard bodied and short haired, looked like she was a body builder. Though a great set of pictures, and a good looking woman, it just did not seem a Domai style picture.
There are several websites I want to see out there, but I'm in a minority. I want Domai style pictures of cars, all the ones on-line are either someones junker sat in their back yard in a restoration process, or an overthought studio shot. Again, Domai style architecture, aircraft, boats, and trains. Just heaps of good quality images, no forced sets, no cluttered menus or backdrops.
I saw the DOMAI hardbody. I found her sexually appealing to a lesser degree than the remainder of more typical models, but still appealing. And from that point, I didn't care about the rest of it. The pictures are hot because the girl is hot and that's what my head says happens for me.
So, although some have made intelligent points about how DOMAI is not necessarily sexual (shaving seems to be the point in contention?) nevertheless, my instincts require it to be for me. That's just how I am. I really don't think it's acculturated -- it's quite seldom that I walk around in my regular culture looking at naked women in woodland settings -- and I really DO think my approach is quite common. In fact, I'd hazard that it's about 75% or more of most male subscribers to DOMAI.
That's surely true.
Eolake said...
"I tend to view many things in an abstract way. It makes some people view me as a weirdo, but that's life."
It would rather make me view you as a Picasso.
The REAL flamboyant weirdo was Dali. :-)
Final, what you describe about the DOMAI girls are simply criteriae of feminine beauty. Which in turn is often linked to sexual attractiveness in the minds of people like you (and of some people very different from you, too). As you say, it's just the way you are.
The way I see it, there's no need for anyone to be wrong here: they're simply beautiful women, and it feels sexual to you even though they're not trying for any particularly erotic attitudes apart from their nudity. Well, these things will happen, even to the healthiest of minds. :-)
Beep,
Evolution has taught us one thing: that every single species to appear and last for a reasonable time was perfect in its own respect. It's been established that most basic and "perfect" genes were set very early in the history of Life and practically haven't changed since, from the sea-anemone to the human.
So the diversity of Life isn't asmuch "improvement" (a bird's wing is perfect for flight, a shark's shape perfect for hydrodynamics, a camel's kidneys perfect for preserving every possible molecule of water), as it is creativeness.
A sheetah or an arabian horse won't move me the same way as a female from my species, but dang, they ARE visions of perfection.
When I was a kid, dinosaurs were portrayed as primitive drafts of Life, destined to disappear as soon as the smart little rat started growing bigger. Not exactly the portrayal seen in Jurassic Park. (Or Ice Age!!!) Most dinosaurs became extinct because their environment changed radically and suddenly. Most of them. Crocodiles, turtles, Komodo dragons, iguanas, all of today's birds... they're dinosaurs that changed and adapted. A singing nightingale, a talkative mynah, a somptuous paradise bird, a gliding eagle... all perfect, each in their own league. And a fully healthy human female in her prime is perfect too. In MY league!
8-)~~~ (drooling with google-eyes)
Chimps feel very ugly to us. Just look at them walk upright. But for climbing trees, WE would be the ridiculous-looking ones.
Coilin asked how you can create a wonderfull site like DOMAI if you are not sexual. I can hardly draw a stick figure but I still enjoy fine art. The greatist example of fine art is the human body.
"Thus spoke Michaelangelo".
Or was it Zarathoustra? ;-)
"The greatist example of fine art is the human body."
When people say that, when they talk about the "beauty" of the human body, they are picturing hot models - not some fat guy, hairy, bloated, purple, dead on a toilet.
Not at all. I have always enjoyed the sight of some fat guy, hairy, bloated, purple, dead on a toilet.
Ooh yeah, like my current wallpaper right here. Very artistic. (FARTistic?)
You are a nasty piece of work, Pascal. :)
That wasn't MY work in this picture, Joe. Well, not THAT particular time, anyway. ;-)
My organized "accidents" are never sloppy like that. Clean, quiet job guaranteed. B-|
Nice blog.
I find this entire discussion fascinating becuase I have been a fan of domai for several years, just slightly longer than I have identified as asexual.
I'm a long time member of an online forum for asexuals (I don't know if I should post the url here or not).
No problem with that.
Ok. The site is called the Asexual Visibility and Education Network and it's located at www.asexuality.org. There is a lot of information about asexuality there as well as a forum for discussing issues that we face. Members of the forum have been interviewed for several different articles and television shows about asexuality (including the article you mentioned).
I've noticed that asexuals are way more relaxing socially than their opposite, hypersexuals. But it seems they're not very interesting for writing soap opera scenarios! Not enough problems in their lives and around them, what with their indifference to committing adultery and all. ;-)
Of course, conflict can arise also from asexuality, especially in a couple. But there's much less likelihood that it ends up in court and on the front news. Or on Jerry Springer! :-D
I'm wondering, spontaneously: is there a relation between asexuality, and the neutral attitude of naturists towards nudity? Or can some people be VERY sexualized and still be ordinary naturists, separating nudity and sex?
From what I have seen (in a non-naturist society), a fixation on sex is typically linked to one on nudity. Joined at the hip, even. But my own vision is still limited. There's not a lot of variety in mental attitudes in Lebanon... Any Western residents insights?
So far as I hear, after a few days or weeks in a nudist place, it seems totally unremarkable. So I guess anybody over-sexed will also be so in clothed society.
Provided anybody over-sexed can fit in a naturist environment, that is. Apparently, getting an "embarrassing male state" there is practically never-occurring.
So maybe hypersexuals prefer to focus exclusively on nude SEXUAL groups?
I heard that Cap d'Agde in France, once the first naturist place in the country, had (d)evolved into a place for swingers and exhibitionists, and isn't a family-friendly town for simple nudists anymore.
My guess is, when you're very focused on sex, you probably won't wish to get de-sensitized to nudity in the first place.
It's true that, notoriously, the main problem naturist communities encounter are people who can't grasp the concept of that nudity-sex separation. Nowadays, many naturists have become extremely wary of single men, and lots of places won't take them for fear that the excess number will scare away single women.
I've read the typical testimony on a naturist forum: "I'm a single woman, and the first day I tried a naturist beach I dodn't have one moment of peace with all the men trying to hit on me." In France, it's come to the point that the distinction between "naturist" and "nudist" is very sensitive. "Naturists" leave sex for the strictly private sphere. "Nudists" may permit a lot, or be a thin excuse for an open orgy club.
So I was just wondering whether the two attitudes CAN be compatible at all. Marked sexual attitude and casualness toward nudity. Not a naturist flirting a lot in clothed society.
I'm thinking that going to a nudist colony would cure anyone of being oversexed - after all, there's no beauty contest to get in.
Eolake, if you had accepted that chronic depression was normal for you, you would never have made great progress on the issue with the help of EFT. Maybe you're naturally asexual. I think more likely, it's a symptom of some long-ago trauma, maybe forgotten, maybe directly related to the depression. Maybe EFT can help there, too. I believe you could be fully functional sexually, and still just as creative and just as successful. I wish you all the best.
Thanks.
It's a thought.
Your asexuality is a gift for those of us who love your site.
Your appreciation and selection of photos which are simply beautiful makes a wonderful site. I do find many of the photos very sexually arousing, but even when I don't (not to my preference, not in the mood, whatever) I still enjoy the beauty and sense of freedom.
Chris W
See Greg Egan's excellent book (all his books are excellent) called "Distress" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_%28novel%29 - for an interesting take on asexuality. I read it years ago and just thought of it now.
Chris W
Thank you very much.
Post a Comment