- Nicole Small
- Roanoke, VA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Asexuality: An Ideal Future?
I've recently realized that nearly all the information about sexuality I've observed has failed to touch on a very important orientation. Many people either fail or refuse to consider asexuality a sexual orientation since there are so many opinions as to exactly what it is. Many believe that Nikola Tesla was asexual. That theory, I believe, should be considered more carefully.
Could asexuality be a path for human evolution? By asexuality, I'm referring to the most logical definition (for procreation purposes.) According to a Wikipedia interpretation, it could be viewed as having no uncontrollable sexual/reproducing urges, yet still possessing the ability to do so if necessary. Some prefer to be involved in a romantic relationship, but don't feel sexual urges nearly as often as the average person. On most occasions, when aroused, an asexual person might prefer D.I.Y.
There are many reasons why a person might feel this way towards sex, however, asexuality due to an overactive mind is the preferred cause. As an example, Tesla was supposedly "celibate" his entire life. In turn, he accomplished more than most of us can comprehend. If only everyone was so productive. Hans Rosling, in his TED Talk, "The Magic Washing Machine" addressed the revolution that the washing machine brought about for women's education. By freeing so much time, women were able to dedicate themselves to activities like reading and learning.
Sex takes up FAR more time in our lives than we might realize. We are much like the domestic house cat. When in "heat," the female will "flaunt." The male, in response begins to "prowl." This is reflected in humans as females decorating themselves (spending many hours and dollars) and males constantly searching....all with one thing in mind, regardless of whether or not they act out in the end. Is asexuality just an abnormality in the thinking process or could it create a biological branch from the current path of evolution? Would it be beneficial or harmful?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Evan Steiner
I think it would definitly free up a lot of time. Whether we use that time for more 'productive' activities seems up for grabs. From what I have seen in my life, when someone loses one distraction (say their computer breaks) they are more likely to find another distraction (trashy television) than be productive (read a book). I'm not saying everyone would but it seems like the people who would be more productive are probably quite productive already.
I think a better theory to test would be what if people were more open to sex? I bet we could take the large chuck of time required for the 'flaunting' and the 'prowling' out of the equation. More free time plus the benefits of more 'excercise' and lower stress levels, now that's a win-win.
Ken brown 30+
It would take recoding our DNA, unless we try a social experiment,i'm sure lot's of people who are less driven will try it but will the more driven be able to adhere to the conditions or be able to,interesting.
Evan Steiner
And while I'm instinctively resistant to anything titled 'social experiment' as a species we have proven remarkably able when we direct our attention at something. Eradicating smallpox and the moon landing are two achievements that come to mind.
Ken brown 30+
Bridge 1 Mapping the human genome
Bridge 2 Understanding and preparing
Bridge 3 Changing the genome
As far as i can tell we're between 1 & 2
all i remember is that it was quite serious.
Evan Steiner
Phase 1 - Collect underpants.
Phase 2 - ?
Phase 3 - Profit.
It's a solid plan but there is a major issue with how to execute it.
Nicole Small
Evan Steiner
First* you could only have sex with your wife/husband with the intent to have children. Then concessions were made where a married couples can have sex without the intent of producing children. That was progress! Then it was overlooked if you miraculously gave birth six months after being married. Moving forward! Then maybe you could remarry if your spouse died. Progress!....Skipping ahead to today, we still ostracize people who are 'too' promiscuous.
I'm still in the camp that we haven't gone far enough to test this idea, hit the critical mass if you will. But I can't differentiate this from the people who think we haven't given enough tax breaks for the trickle down theory to work or the ones who think that we haven't loaned enough money to the banks to make them honest.
*Very loose definition of first...
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Evan Steiner
Long ago the less prolific were weeded out of our gene pool. After years of gene competition I take it as a given that our desire to be better than our neighbor is an attempt to prove that we are more suitable a mate.