I just want to make friends online and they start denying that i have no attraction to anyone and then they threaten me. Who are they to dictate my rights?
>>6133964
Because every asexual I've ever seen is hideously ugly making it very unlikely that you are actually asexual. I think you just can't get laid and are now denying wanting to get laid in the first place. Have some dignity, go to /r9k/ and bitch about being ugly and virginal with those ugly virgins.
>>6134049
Most people are ugly, though. The average person is, by definition, a 5.5. The correlation is likely all in your mind because you're looking for it.
And if it's true that asexuals are faking it and not pursuing sex even though they want it, is that not desirable? It's better for everyone to encourage them to continue their voluntary celibacy rather than pressure them into hitting on people who probably won't like it. It certainly makes them worlds better than the /r9k/ crowd who keep trying to have sex even though nobody wants to have sex with them.
>>6133964
All they do is talk about sex and tfw no gf or tfw no bf.
>>6134129
Scaling attractiveness is a product of PUA culture and not beholden to mathematics.
Pretty nice label for closet gays to hide behind.
>>6134129
Agreed the average person is a 5.5 which is why the asexual average appearing to be 1.5 is evidence of something other than asexuality at play. If asexuals represented an appropriate cross section of attractiveness i'd be inclined to believe it exists. Its possible as you say that I have preconceived notions and am biased in estimating the average asexual attractiveness, but all I can say to that is no I don't think so.
I don't find it desirable one way or another for ugly people to pursue sex or not. I do think sometime soon /r9k/ will start fucking each other which would be a major boon to the lgbt community, in numbers anyway.
>>6134175
I question the size of the sample that is the source of this anecdotal evidence.
>>6134175
5.5 is just a mathematical average. The number scale does not have a basis in averages or statistics
>>6134164
Many physical quantities like height, weight and attractiveness follow a Normal distribution, the Bell Curve, to which we can assign any scale we want, including an average of 5.5 if we want to use the 0 to 10 scale. So yes attractiveness, like most things, can be modelled mathematically.
beyond the distribution of attractiveness, we can even mathematically define how attractive an individual is:
http://cs229.stanford.edu/proj2006/HefnerLindsay-AreYouHotOrNot.pdf
>>6134207
Can we at least agree that the vast majority of people are flat-out unattractive to the vast majority of other people? There are no true pansexuals.
>>6134207
whats your point? I can call it 5.5/10 550/1000 or 3/6. It just the fucking average. Are you denying that half of people are above average and the other half are below? Its known to be a symmetric distribution
>>6134189
the plural of anecdotal evidence is data
>>6134235
Minus any kind of intellectual rigor or attempt to avoid sampling bias
>>6134223
>>6134233
It's an invention of PUA culture but there is no scientific basis or legitimacy to the scale. The average is whatever they want it to be and an individual ranks however high or low they want at a given moment.
>>6134230
No because you can't have a set comprised of two subsets that have a majority over one another.
>>6134298
That's not what I'm doing. For each individual in a population, the majority of other people in that population will not be attracted. The subset of people who aren't attracted is slightly different relative to each individual, but still very large each time. There's a lot of mutual repulsion going on.
>>6134049
How is whining about women and being miserable about >tfw no gf MORE dignified that claiming to be asexual? Even if you're not really asexual, jokingly saying you are seems far healthier than just whining about being a virgin.
>>6134230
That has nothing to do with pansexuals though. Pansexuality just means you're attracted to people regardless of their gender.
>>6140473
Then they chose the wrong prefix. They're making it sound like they're pretending to be attracted to literally everyone, when in fact they're just bisexuals who want to shame other bisexuals for allegedly hating intersex special snowflakes that neither of them are likely to ever meet.
>>6133964
Nietzsche perfectly explained how slave morality, which is popular among losers, is only a reaction to the master morality, which is popular among the powerful, precisely because the losers are too weak to live up to the standards of strength, individuality and charisma of master morality.
In the exact same process, asexuality is a system of values invented by people who had to built a whole ideological excuse to cope with not being able to have sexual relationships, for a variety of reasons.
The reaction from the normal people to the asexuals is exactly the same as the reaction from the masters to the slaves, aka pity and contempt.
I hate when people say that to me.
I'm asexual, my friends and more people I know say that I am 7-8/10 more or less. I simply don't want to have sex because I think is ugly and dirty. I mean, I've me asexuals who are like vegans with this, ALWAYS saying "Hahaha I'm asexual yes", "Sex is soooo bad". No person attracts me neither romantically nor sexually, and I live with it.
What's the problem then?
>>6144082
No, they choose the right prefix. It has to do with the convention of defining sexualities, when someone is [x]sexual, [x] refers to the gender or sex they're attracted to. So pansexual means attracted to all genders/sexes, just like homosexuals are attracted to the same gender/sex. Otherwise, if it didn't refer specifically to gender/sex, homosexual could mean anyone who is sexually attracted to the same race, species etc.
>>6144117
How is asexuality a slave morality? I'd think it's more of a slave morality to focus your life on sex if you're unable to attain it. Even if asexuality is just an excuse for people who can't have sex, it's far more liberating to accept that sex isn't that important to you.
>>6134129
>The average person is, by definition, a 5.5.
I think you'll find by definition of averages, that it's 5.
>>6150099
Depends on whether the scale is 1-10 or 0-10.
Majority of asexuals are autistic attention-whores who insist they are oppressed by a society who doesn't even give them any mind.
Asexuals tend to be SJWs who use their pretend sexuality as a platform to yell at people who enjoy sex.
Asexuals feel it is necessary to have their own pride marches to increase the visibility and representation of... something.
Asexuals often demand representation in the LGB community despite them having absolutely nothing in common with it.
AVEN exists.
Most asexuals can't agree on a definition of what asexual actually means or what it even entails.
("I'm an asexual, but I still have sex!~~~ ;D")
("Asexuals can enjoy sex! YOU BIGOT!")
("Asexuals DO NOT WANT SEX ASSHOLE!!!")
("Asexuality means <insert this week's new definition>!")
There is zero consistency.
I could go on. But there are many many reasons to dislike asexuals as a group.
>>6150176
Forgot about "aromantic"
That is essentially another word for autism at this point.
You can't manage a deep social connection because "reasons".
>>6133964
Because you're attention whoring tumblrinas. If you genuinely have no sec drive, consider telling your doctor
>>6150176
>Most asexuals can't agree on a definition of what asexual actually means or what it even entails.
>("I'm an asexual, but I still have sex!~~~ ;D")
>("Asexuals can enjoy sex! YOU BIGOT!")
>("Asexuals DO NOT WANT SEX ASSHOLE!!!")
>("Asexuality means <insert this week's new definition>!")
>There is zero consistency.
The single definition is that one is asexual if they don't experience sexual attraction. Usually that implies they don't want sex, but not always, there are other reasons for wanting sex.
>>6150238
sexual attraction =/= sex drive
>>6150395
>there are other reasons for wanting sex
Name one.
>>6150448
Actually it does. One begets the other.
>not asexual
>everyone kind of assumes I am
Thanks guys.
>>6150910
>wanting children/to please partner
That's different than wanting sex itself.
Try harder.
>>6150934
It's a reason to want to have sex. Which is what I was referring to in the first place.
asexuals don't have souls. They are fucking assholes. They have no personality to the point they are almost like walking comatose vegetables. I went to a trans meetup one time which was already cringe and then they had an asexual meeting right after and I decided to stay because I wanted to socialize and they are like why are you fucking here you aren't asexual and I was like uhh cause Iv'e been here? Why do I have to leave. asexuals are cunts. Also why do they have another name aromantic? Does that mean if they date someone they don't give a shit about any romance for their partner seriously what assholes.
>>6133964
Because you post faggy images like that one.
>>6151026
No, it's not.
Just because you want things supplied by sex doesn't mean you want the sex itself.
Want a kid? Adopt?
Want to please your partner? Take them out to dinner.
Stop pretending you want sex then claim to be asexual.
>>6151127
Aromantic means a lack of romantic attraction, not behavior.
Orientation titles describe attraction, not behavior.
>>6151163
When I was talking about asexuals "wanting sex", I was referring to reasons OTHER THAN SEX ITSELF. It's like how most people want money, even though money itself has little intrinsic value.
>>6151165
can you define romantic attraction for me? Sorry if I'm retarded.
I get having a low libido n such...
The only time I stay away from an asexual romantically is when they *refuse* to pleasure me.
Like cmon, bitch, I bought you dinner, took you out on a sweet date and did everything I could to make you happy, so please shove a buttplug in my ass and make out with me for a bit.
Luckily, I date a lady who loves me, and I could probably ease her into something like this. I've eased her into kissing me, cuddling, etc. The downside is that she moved. To the other side of the fucking world. Yay for learning another culture and language, then moving to goddamn Japan just to spend my life with her!
Aromantics, on the other hand are fucking weird. I tend to stay away from them in general. Unless I'm generally not interested in a relationship with them or I'm currently in one. That's because I don't want to get attached to them.
>>6151165
When did we start taking this tumblr shit seriously?
>>6151165
But romance is all about behavior. This is why aromantic is fucking bullshit and asexuals have no souls because of it.
>>6152288
Romantic attraction is what drives the behavior. Every behavior has a cause, nothing is truly JUST about behavior.
>>6152848
right so if they dont have that drive then they won't act that way and thats why they are soulless cunts.
I went to a liberal arts college. Radically activisty. Out of the 11 people I knew well who identified as "asexual," 10 were female. 9 of those 10 then fell for some man further down the line and got sexual, fast.
The lone remaining one is an asexbian, and she's a good friend of mine.
You can tell if they're for real or not because real asexual people don't get grossed out by sex or act like it's awful. They accept it and move on. The rest are faking it.
It's how people get queer points without having to do anything to prove it. Literally the laziest special snowflake label.
I don't understand why people hate ace/aro people so much.
Are they really that bad? Does any of this stuff even affect you people?
I can understand if people are pretentious about it, but Christ, could you guys be less understanding.
>>6153909
It's not even a sexuality though
Asexuality is stupid, you arent a fungus or some shit, usually most of these people are just ugly fuckers with mental problems so they can get laid.
And then they all get in your face "LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HOW IM NOT HAVING SEX AND NO ONE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST ME EVER AND AT MOST I MIGHT GET TEASED FOR BEING A LOSER WHO CANT GET LAID"
I met someone claiming to be asexual once.
>talking about people and relationships and shit
>"btw im asexual haha..."
>so you don't want to have sex?
>"ya pretty much"
>ok
Then they kept bringing it up whenever any discussion of anything even remotely intimate was brought up around me and our friends.
Literally
No one
Fucking
Cares
If you
Dont
Want to
Have
Sex
>>6150086
I didn't say asexuality was a slave morality (slave morality is defined by Nietzsche and I wouldn't even try to pretend I'm intelligent enough to complete his ideas). I was just comparing the two phenomenons because they seem to me they rely on the same psychological process, it was an analogy.
And yes, you got my point, it's precisely because it's liberating that people who can't have sex create a whole paradigm to explain to themselves and others they don't need sex, when in reality, they couldn't have sex even if they wanted it and probably know, deep down, that they're lying to themselves. It's a defense mecanism to protect your self-esteem and your social status, it's a (useful) lie.
>>6155266
Not to mention that a lack of sex drive is a symptom of many diseases...But they're against medicalising their condition...Kek
>>6155310
Asexuality =/= lack of sex drive
And medicalization of low sex drive IS a problem when a lack of sex drive is BY ITSELF considered a disease.
