Faith and sex

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Pr. Jae said:
So your assumption here Gord seems to be that one needs to have sex in order to have a full life. I don't agree with that assumption.
Click to expand...
Which is fine for some, but the person who is homosexual who does need sex for a full life? what do you say to them?
 
GordW said:
Which is fine for some, but the person who is homosexual who does need sex for a full life? what do you say to them?
Click to expand...

I don't believe such people exist but I'm not going to tell anybody that unless they ask me, and I think that's unlikely to happen.
 
I'm not sure why anyone is conflating two separate continuums.

If you're asexual, you don't need sex for a full life. If you're anything other than asexual, you need some (or a lot of) sex for a full life.

If you're straight, you like only the opposite gender; if you're gay, you like the same; bisexuals are all the people between those extremes.

Most people need sex for a full life, regardless of orientation. I think my gay friends would be pretty surprised to know that they're supposed to be asexual.
 
BetteTheRed said:
I'm not sure why anyone is conflating two separate continuums.

If you're asexual, you don't need sex for a full life. If you're anything other than asexual, you need some (or a lot of) sex for a full life.

If you're straight, you like only the opposite gender; if you're gay, you like the same; bisexuals are all the people between those extremes.

Most people need sex for a full life, regardless of orientation. I think my gay friends would be pretty surprised to know that they're supposed to be asexual.
Click to expand...
I don't think someone needs to identify as asexual for that to be true.
 
Is God multise-xual if ID loves all things ... birds, bees, etc.? Or is that by conference unisexual or just going without if in the restful wise mode ... sort of "Y's" as divined?
 
ChemGal said:
I don't think someone needs to identify as asexual for that to be true.
Click to expand...

I'd say it depends if you include masturbation. I think if you have no sex life, don't care, and you don't masturbate, you're asexual. If you have no sex life, don't care, but you have a healthy level of sexual self-care, you're probably mono-sexual.
 
BetteTheRed said:
I'd say it depends if you include masturbation. I think if you have no sex life, don't care, and you don't masturbate, you're asexual. If you have no sex life, don't care, but you have a healthy level of sexual self-care, you're probably mono-sexual.
Click to expand...
What about those who identify as grey or demi sexual?
 
ChemGal said:
What about those who identify as grey or demi sexual?
Click to expand...

Actually, it appears that demi-sexuals themselves identify as being on the asexual spectrum. From the Demisexuality Resource Center:

http://demisexuality.org/articles/what-is-demisexuality/

Grey is between sexual and asexual on the spectrum per various resources so while not asexuality, it is on that spectrum as well. It's rather like the spectrum between gay and straight. There isn't a gay-straight dichotomy, but a spectrum that runs from "always homosexual" through degrees of bisexual to "always heterosexual". Grey is basically in the space on the sexual-asexual spectrum that bisexual occupies on the gay-straight spectrum.

This seems like a bit of a pointless debate that you and @BetteTheRed are having. The bottom line is that there is a non-zero percentage of the population of various descriptions who can live without nookie. Some identify as a- or demi- sexual, some do not. I know a couple of them on another forum.

And this all began with arguing about Jae's contention that gay people can live without sex, which is only true for gay people who are also towards the asexual end of the asexuality spectrum. Many, if not most, gay people are not in that position; they want/need, and are entitled to, a sex life and the existence of asexuality can't be used to justify denying it to them.
 
Last edited:
Mendalla said:
Actually, it appears that demi-sexuals themselves identify as being on the asexual spectrum. From the Demisexuality Resource Center:

http://demisexuality.org/articles/what-is-demisexuality/

Grey is between sexual and asexual on the spectrum per various resources so while not asexuality, it is on that spectrum as well. It's rather like the spectrum between gay and straight. There isn't a gay-straight dichotomy, but a spectrum that runs from "always homosexual" through degrees of bisexual to "always heterosexual". Grey is basically in the space on the sexual-asexual spectrum that bisexual occupies on the gay-straight spectrum.

This seems like a bit of a pointless debate that you and @BetteTheRed are having. The bottom line is that there is a non-zero percentage of the population of various descriptions who can live without nookie. Some identify as a- or demi- sexual, some do not. I know a couple of them on another forum.

And this all began with arguing about Jae's contention that gay people can live without sex, which is only true for gay people who are also towards the asexual end of the asexuality spectrum. Many, if not most, gay people are not in that position; they want/need, and are entitled to, a sex life and the existence of asexuality can't be used to justify denying it to them.
Click to expand...

Someone can identify as demisexual without seeing themselves as asexual though. I think to say that someone can't having a fulfilling life unless X is too extreme and is speaking for them.
 
ChemGal said:
Someone can identify as demisexual without seeing themselves as asexual though. I think to say that someone can't having a fulfilling life unless X is too extreme and is speaking for them.
Click to expand...

Right, and I'm agreeing with you. Arguing about the meaning of demi-sexual, though, speaks to what I said further down:

This seems like a bit of a pointless debate that you and @BetteTheRed are having. The bottom line is that there is a non-zero percentage of the population of various descriptions who can live without nookie. Some identify as a- or demi- sexual, some do not. I know a couple of them on another forum.
Click to expand...

And what I was really trying to say is that what we call them or they call themselves doesn't matter; If someone says they can have a fulfilling life without sex (or anything else) we are called to respect that, not question it.
 
I'm not arguing as much as trying to pull apart definitions. We can mainly agree that orientation and libido-level, for want of a better term, are independent variables?
 
GordW said:
I don't see how one can disagree with that. THe problem is that some insist that only those with a specific orientation are allowed to act on their sexuality.
Click to expand...

And that, of course, strikes me as both illogical and unfair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top