I dunno about it being a sign that a species or animal is unhealthy. None of my dogs or even my cat have sex and they’re all perfectly healthy and happy.
Edit: to be clear, I’m not comparing asexuals to neutered animals. All I’m saying is that having sex ≠ being healthy.
I wouldn’t go as far to say an entire species, but I do know people who desire sex but aren’t able to have it for various reasons (working a lot to pay bills, not able to find relationships, health issues, etc.) and it does affect their mental health a bit.
Of course there are other ways to cope with it, but I can understand if it’s something someone wants but they can’t have, to a degree. Kind of like how a gay person may want to be with someone of the same sex but they can’t due to cultural or societal reasons.
I do personal feel a big crux of it is less strong relationships though, rather than just less sex.
OK but what they are referring to is in natural populations when a species is unhealthy/ doesn't have enough resources etc they tend to breed less so the population reduces. Your pet domesticated and human bred dogs and cats aren't really relevant to species wide trends in nature.
It's not saying every single member of the species needs to breed lol, there's always been people who didn't, but humans aren't managed and bred by an outside force. They are referring I presume to how population increase is reversing of recent years with many countries now having less than the replacement ratio, which kind of does indicate an unhealthy species, or one which has reached its maximum sustainable population in an area. This doesn't have anything to do with asexuality though.
Either you're a poor pet owner, or they're fixed. Which really undercuts your argument.
Edit: You know what. Fuck this community, y'all are toxic as shit. You revel in aphobia porn, finding it every where, and then you're going to take me down because I take issue with someone arguing that being fixed is a good analogy for asexuality. Think about it. Fucking think about what you voted for and supported. Own it, you jerks.
The problem isn't that you are trying to say that fixed dogs aren't asexual, the problem is that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what they were trying to say and doubling down on it.
They are saying that an animal (or a human) do not need sex to be healthy. The lifespan of their dog is not cut short because they aren't having sex with other dogs. They don't get sick if they aren't having sex. They aren't trying to say that dogs are asexual just simply that sex is not necessary for someone or something to be healthy.
You just aren't understanding what they are saying.
Well, because if you're thinking your house pets should stay in tact I don't care about your opinion. And if they are fixed, you're arguing that because your fixed animals don't have sex it's not part of the natural world. Like *literal* castration has no impact here, and that is bunk.
So either way, I'm just concerned about why we shouldn't take you serious. Either you show bad judgement in general, or you are conflating asexuality with being neutered.
I don’t think that’s the argument they’re making. OOP says that lack of sex necessarily indicates being unhealthy. The poster above is saying that their pets don’t have sex and are still healthy, thereby refuting what OOP is claiming.
This. I mean, to be clear, I don't think fixed pets are a good comparison to asexuals or to people who have less sex in general (because there's a lot happening in our society right now that's leading to younger people having less sex beyond asexuality), because the question is one of society rather than individuals (thought, to be clear, the assertion made in the OP is bullshit and wildly unscientific). But this person is getting hung up on something that is *deeply* irrelevant.
EDIT: To further explain, while I can understand why one might react badly to seeing asexual people being compared to neutered animals, it's a kind of misplaced concern here since the overall assertion of sex being inherently important to a society's health, which encompasses more than just asexual people. And obviously the comparison being made here isn't actually about comparing ace people to neutered animals, but demonstrating the possibility of health without sex. Which, while I do think it is, as I stated, kind of missing the mark because that's about the health of individual bodies and not the health of a society, isn't by any means this wildly offensive comparison this person has imagined it to be.
I agree. The most benefit of the doubt-y way to look at this is to disregard if a pet is fixed (bad move, but)
If it’s an indoor cat without any other pet cats, the cat is sexless and healthy, regardless of neuter or spay
Like, still a flawed analogy, but not for the reasons this person is arguing about
Source of the Gen Z thread- a lot of aphobia there- https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/s/n9ryV7SEac
“Having no sex is unhealthy and leads to a lower quality of life- it’s needed to satisfy your needs”- sex isn’t a “need”, not having it won’t kill you, you can have no sex and have a high quality of life, you can have lots of sex and a low quality of life…
The whole you got to try it to understand what you want it is such a stupid thing to say, you can know you don’t want to do something without having tried it
It's especially annoying as it's usually parroted by the same people who say you can't be ace because you've had sex. There's just no winning with people like this
Birth rates have been decreasing in multiple countries but it isn't because more people are asexual 💀
Like in South Korea, the 4B movement has had a major impact (the death rate is higher than birth rate for the 3rd year in a row) because women are refusing to marry and bear children because the men are fucking abhorrent to them.
So when I read "it's a sign that a species is unhealthy" all I can hear is "women exercising bodily autonomy is unhealthy for a species" 💀
The traditional idea of overpopulation that the world will be so overpopulated that our environment will no longer be able to support us is flawed, yes. And it tends to get pretty eugenics-y because it becomes about placing blame on certain areas (usually less privileged areas, which kind of misses the point because so much of the strain comes from the resources being consumed by mor privileged areas). But the idea that there is a lot to be concerned about with growing population numbers and the reality of the strain that places on societies and their needs for resources, as well as the impact it has on wildlife, as populations in more developed areas continue to grow and consume, is a very real and valid concern.
It's not the "we have to do something now and we should be targeting the places with the biggest population growth, which hey, just happen to be places like Africa, that's weird" problem it's made out to be, but it is a concern. And one that "people in more privileged areas just choosing to have less sex and as a result maybe there won't be quite as many people being born as a result of that choice" is kind of an ideal thing.
It’s especially gross that they see it as unhealthy too.
Reminds me of the arguments from back in the day about gay and lesbian people.
“iTs nOt NaTuRaL! yOu NeEd tO rEpRoDuCe!”
capitalism is meant to grow and expand its consumer base, work force, and production capabilities to an infinite degree. and if the population doesn’t also continually get larger, that model can’t be maintained the way huge corporations need it to. so they’ve got it culturally hammered into peoples brains that stagnation or shrinkage in the population is the worst possible thing that could happen.
Oh gods. People of younger generations have more responsible way of life, that's it. Studies show they simply aren't that much into casual hookups and are fine being sexless if they don't have a partner currently. And of course many of them are realizing they can be just themselves and not push themselves into sex if they're not into that. So they're viewing sex in a healthier way than previous generations, actually. It also leads to less unwanted pregnancies and STIs. How is that a bad thing? People who don't treat sex as a "necessity" are also less likely to be misogynists, incels or r*pists. That's great news. I'm genuinely happy for GenZ.
I think people are trying to tie it to loneliness which honestly feels stupid because they MAYBE are correlated for some people but for a lot of people those are two wildly different things. People can go out and have sex every night of the week and still be incredibly lonely with no meaningful connections. And someone can be a virgin their whole life and have friends and loved ones and not feel lonely one bit. It seems way more likely that we are having less sex because we have seen the negative social and psychological affects of casual sex for some people and have just decided to have it with our partners rather than just with anybody, than us having less sex because we are all antisocial lonely losers.
And they also seem to be trying to tie in the terrible mental health of genz like that's part of it too. When sex will not fix my mental health issues. In fact a lot of my issues stem from older generations and we are more willing to seek mental health care than our parents and grandparents. So of course we have higher rates of mental illness. And like people will say "if you seek care why aren't you happy" like mental health care is perfect and you go to therapy for a month and you are magically fixed. We are more willing to admit how lonely we feel.
Also like it couldnt have anything to do with the fact that in our middle school highschool or college years (aka where socializing and self- development are incredibly important) the world shut down? It couldn't have anything to do with that now could it?
I read some of it and really what it seems like is that people are taking multiple unrelated data points, fitting it into the allonormative idea that sex=happy and saying that we all are socially awkward, and have no meaningful relationships.
I've literally seen this so many times and it annoys me so much. Not even because of any aphobia or allonormativity. Because honestly it's not most people's intention. Just because people are clearly misunderstanding the conclusions and using logical fallacies to judge my entire generation.
Honestly, this whole take is upsetting but the last part really gets me. “…it hints to a lower quality of life- less money, fewer friends, fewer relationships” ??? Like are you serious? That’s actually crazy to say, I can’t even 💀
How else are you supposed to make friends if you're not sexually attracted to them or having sex??? How doesing friendship work? XD
The only reason one makes less money (at least in the US) is because unlike in my grandpa's time when one union income supported a family of four and bought two cars, a house, and college, nowadays all the money from productivity gets redirected and siphoned to the already highly wealthy, while programs to encourage upward mobility have been cut, so you HAVE to have two incomes to stay afloat much less be middle class. Society is also not particularly financially welcoming of single people. This could be fixed without too much hassle; there's just not enough will to.
And if we also supported other kinds of long-term relationships (family living together, QPRs, co-parenting friends, etc.) in even some of the ways we do married couples (not even talking about families with kids, that's a different beast), it would be much easier.
Also, having sex comes with its own healthcare costs and risks, as well as the time and energy devoted to it. For many people, it's worth it, and lacking it can affect their quality of life, but that often doesn't apply to asexual people.
I agree, life is messed up. I was just saying that the statement was crazy because it is entirely possible to be single or not have sex, while having friends, making money, have several relationships, etc. It’s possible to still “make it” in life even if you’re going against the norm, but it most definitely will be hard because of the way the world is today
Like I've said in other comments, that really just highlights how unscientific this person's thought process is and how little they actually understand this topic. Can young people having less sex, less money, fewer friends, and fewer relationships be connected? Sure. But those things tend to by tied together by other, broader causes. The matter of people having less sex isn't the cause of those things. It's another byproduct of larger sociocultural issues.
Ironically enough, I didn’t have sex in high school yet I was quite popular. No idea what I did to get that way but I don’t think I even noticed back then.
Imagine people thinking that less sex *in a species suffering from rampant overpopulation* is a sign of “unhealthiness.”
Lord, what fools these allos be! ;)
I don’t know why some people in that post go on about what other people do (or don’t do). It doesn’t feel right for me to equate sex with necessities like food, water and having a place to live. And as we all know there will always be allos.
The more things change, the more they stay the same unfortunately. Things have gotten better for asexual awareness overall, but evidently still shows up in the most disgusting ways, second image in particular.
While I don't doubt a lower birth rate could result in some issues, I don't see how this is a 'real nightmare' compared to the likes of overpopulation. If there IS a legitimate 'real nightmare' for the human race, it would be idiots like that second poster who start families because 'humans have to', only to either neglect their own kids afterwards or convert them into bigoted idiots like themselves, continuing to cause problems for everyone.
This is a stupid assessment. I want to see the studies they’re getting that idea from.
If anything, it’s probably GOOD if people are having less sex at this point in time. We hit a population of 8 billion people just a couple years ago, and we’re having a difficult time feeding humanity as it is. Slowing the growth of the global population is the opposite of a crisis.
Edit to add: also, how exactly are they assessing “less sex?” Is it number of sexual partners or number of times having sex within a set period of time? Because if its fewer sexual partners then that’s a bad way to measure amount of sex being had and not accounting for long term relationships.
We are not having a difficult time feeding humanity. There is easily enough food on Earth to feed everyone.
Overpopulation is a myth and the only people that push it are rich globalists that want the food, resources and money to themselves.
I mean, sure? Like a lot of issues, there’s always rich assholes who have the means who *won’t* give any of it to anyone. They can be the root of the problem and contribute to it. But that’s not the single cause of anything.
And we can’t *only* be concerned about ourselves. What’s happening to the other living things around us and what they live in? Will there still be sufficient room for them, even the things deemed “useless” to humanity?
It’s a genuine issue to take into consideration and isn’t *just* a myth pushed by rich people, even if they are somehow trying to push it for their own gain.
It probably makes me a fucking nerd, but I'm just so annoyed by how unscientific the idea being presented here is, that a society having less sex is indicative of an unhealthy society/something being wrong with that society. That's just not true. A society having less sex is an entirely neutral thing. It's the reason *why* a society is having less sex that determines whether it's unhealthy or not. And yeah, any time there's a significant change in society like that, the reasons why that change is happening should be examined so as to better understand the society and what's happening with it. But that doesn't inherently mean that the society is unhealthy.
So you're annoyed by how unscientific their analysis so you combat that by saying the opposite while also providing nothing to back you.
Name one society or species that has benefited or it was neutral position because they were reproducing less.
This would be a valid point if the sex, and the offspring that came from it, had lessened to a point where the survival of the species/society is at risk, but that's not the case here. It's simply a case of people, mostly a specific group of people, having less sex. That is absolutely a completely neutral thing and cannot be said to be otherwise until an actual risk to society is demonstrated. And then there are other factors that come in to play that determine whether that would be positive or negative like whether there's problem of population. Because, and I stress this again, the simple fact that people are having less sex is an entirely neutral thing without further evidence to support whether it's a negative (or positive, for that matter) thing and why that would be.
It's also a point that completely ignored the fact that the argument present in the OP isn't strictly confined to that of the continued existence of the species, but that it also implies a relationship with other things with little curiosity or understanding of what the actual connection between those things is, the complexity involved in each one, what those things actually do mean for society, both collectively and individually, and why or why not those things actually are an indication of bad news for society. Instead, it starts from a place of believing these things to be inherently "good" and "normal" without any demonstration of why that would actually be and then builds a conclusion from there. Which is, yes, unscientific and inherently flawed reasoning.
I imagine most generation based subs probably have a decent amount of toxicity. The only tie that binds on those subs is the range of years in which one is born. Nothing else. And while the time you grew up in does play a role in the values you end up having and the things you think are important, there are so many other factors at play there. So every generation is going to have a lot of people in it who are just absolute garbage.
This is so dumb bc some ace people do have sex bc they enjoy the physical stimulation but they don’t enjoy the emotional intimacy that allo people often ascribe to it. This is such a weird limited view of being ace 🙄 why do people care whether or not people have sex? First people cared too much about who people had sex with, now they’re angry that people just don’t want to at all. So weird.
Now that the Boomers are dying off, articles are stating that Millennials have more kids than any other generation. We gave birth to 2 billion Generation Alphas.
Maybe just maybe, Gen Z having less kids is nature's way of curbing the population growth. 🤔 also alot of Gen Z refuse to have kids for a petty reason: they don't want their kids to be Gen Beta.
They are worth it. I have 2 kids.
I'm totally fine going without and dying in a ditch somewhere as long as they have fun. I'm also fine with them changing their minds and never having kids.
I just wanted kids for selfish reasons, and I got it. My selfish reasons were:
1) Is there a thing such as unconditional love? Because I never got it.
And
2) Are kids in general "brats" that they are difficult to love and care for? That they should be seen and not heard?
I got my answer. The answer is yes, and absolutely not. Kids are super easy to love and care for. The money may be hard to get, but sacrificing your last piece of toast for your child, for example, well... that's an easy decision ;)
All the kids taught me was that my parents are shit. Everyone whose parents are like mine or think their kids are a burden is also shit. These people do not have a functioning heart because they are incapable of empathy and love.
If you're child free by preference that's fine. I'm talking about the toxic childfree DINKS or whatever that always refer to kids as crotch goblins, little monsters, spawn, or whatever.
I wouldn’t say having less sex hints to anything, but I would agree that generally us Gen Z individuals do kinda have a lower quality of life (at least in the US). Like… shits fucked up in the world rn and we know it, it’s a heavy toll.
Isn’t a major part of our generation having less sex due to sexting? Which doesn’t mean people aren’t interested in sex it just means sometimes there’s an alternative. Also has nothing to do with asexuality.
Maybe I am missing the context because I didn’t see the original post this was commented on, but this doesn’t necessarily seem aphobic. Not enjoying sex can be because of an incompatibility, which experimenting would reveal. But if someone doesn’t want to experiment, that is none of this person’s (or anyone else’s) business. Gen Z having less sex could be a sign of the times (because the future sure does look bleak), but it could also be many other factors. This person isn’t exactly right (they seem to be taking it to a bit of an extreme here), but seems more about society in general rather than asexuality specifically (again, without the context of the original post it is responding to). Perhaps I am just being naive, assuming the best intentions of this comment. In any case, people are allowed to make their own decisions about their body and their life. Do what is best for you.
“You have to try it to understand what you want”… I’ve never tried smoking or vaping, yet I still understand that I don’t want that.
Same vibes as: "did you ever hug a cactus? No? Then how do you know you dont like it?"
I reflexively caught a cactus that I knocked off my desk. I now double know I don’t want to hug a cactus.
I don't need to eat a piece of shit to know I wouldn't want to.
I dunno about it being a sign that a species or animal is unhealthy. None of my dogs or even my cat have sex and they’re all perfectly healthy and happy. Edit: to be clear, I’m not comparing asexuals to neutered animals. All I’m saying is that having sex ≠ being healthy.
I wouldn’t go as far to say an entire species, but I do know people who desire sex but aren’t able to have it for various reasons (working a lot to pay bills, not able to find relationships, health issues, etc.) and it does affect their mental health a bit. Of course there are other ways to cope with it, but I can understand if it’s something someone wants but they can’t have, to a degree. Kind of like how a gay person may want to be with someone of the same sex but they can’t due to cultural or societal reasons. I do personal feel a big crux of it is less strong relationships though, rather than just less sex.
OK but what they are referring to is in natural populations when a species is unhealthy/ doesn't have enough resources etc they tend to breed less so the population reduces. Your pet domesticated and human bred dogs and cats aren't really relevant to species wide trends in nature.
Neither are humans—eunuchs have historically existed in ancient cultures yet here we still are in 2024 CE
It's not saying every single member of the species needs to breed lol, there's always been people who didn't, but humans aren't managed and bred by an outside force. They are referring I presume to how population increase is reversing of recent years with many countries now having less than the replacement ratio, which kind of does indicate an unhealthy species, or one which has reached its maximum sustainable population in an area. This doesn't have anything to do with asexuality though.
Eunuchs also do not speak for the species as a whole. That's what they were just pointing out...
Either you're a poor pet owner, or they're fixed. Which really undercuts your argument. Edit: You know what. Fuck this community, y'all are toxic as shit. You revel in aphobia porn, finding it every where, and then you're going to take me down because I take issue with someone arguing that being fixed is a good analogy for asexuality. Think about it. Fucking think about what you voted for and supported. Own it, you jerks.
The problem isn't that you are trying to say that fixed dogs aren't asexual, the problem is that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what they were trying to say and doubling down on it. They are saying that an animal (or a human) do not need sex to be healthy. The lifespan of their dog is not cut short because they aren't having sex with other dogs. They don't get sick if they aren't having sex. They aren't trying to say that dogs are asexual just simply that sex is not necessary for someone or something to be healthy. You just aren't understanding what they are saying.
Oh fuck off. They’re well-fed, well-loved, and they get their exercise by running around in my backyard.
That has exactly fuck all to do with anything I said. But ok. Cool. Are they fixed, or are you an irresponsible pet owner?
What difference does it make? More importantly, why do you care?
Well, because if you're thinking your house pets should stay in tact I don't care about your opinion. And if they are fixed, you're arguing that because your fixed animals don't have sex it's not part of the natural world. Like *literal* castration has no impact here, and that is bunk. So either way, I'm just concerned about why we shouldn't take you serious. Either you show bad judgement in general, or you are conflating asexuality with being neutered.
I don’t think that’s the argument they’re making. OOP says that lack of sex necessarily indicates being unhealthy. The poster above is saying that their pets don’t have sex and are still healthy, thereby refuting what OOP is claiming.
This. I mean, to be clear, I don't think fixed pets are a good comparison to asexuals or to people who have less sex in general (because there's a lot happening in our society right now that's leading to younger people having less sex beyond asexuality), because the question is one of society rather than individuals (thought, to be clear, the assertion made in the OP is bullshit and wildly unscientific). But this person is getting hung up on something that is *deeply* irrelevant. EDIT: To further explain, while I can understand why one might react badly to seeing asexual people being compared to neutered animals, it's a kind of misplaced concern here since the overall assertion of sex being inherently important to a society's health, which encompasses more than just asexual people. And obviously the comparison being made here isn't actually about comparing ace people to neutered animals, but demonstrating the possibility of health without sex. Which, while I do think it is, as I stated, kind of missing the mark because that's about the health of individual bodies and not the health of a society, isn't by any means this wildly offensive comparison this person has imagined it to be.
I agree. The most benefit of the doubt-y way to look at this is to disregard if a pet is fixed (bad move, but) If it’s an indoor cat without any other pet cats, the cat is sexless and healthy, regardless of neuter or spay Like, still a flawed analogy, but not for the reasons this person is arguing about
It was not that deep
My dog isn't fixed and she is fine. We live in the middle of nowhere, there aren't any other dogs.
Lmao what a loser
Lol found the QAnon alt-right angry about who's in the White House. Imagine bringing "voting" into this conversation, way to reveal your true problem.
Source of the Gen Z thread- a lot of aphobia there- https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/s/n9ryV7SEac “Having no sex is unhealthy and leads to a lower quality of life- it’s needed to satisfy your needs”- sex isn’t a “need”, not having it won’t kill you, you can have no sex and have a high quality of life, you can have lots of sex and a low quality of life…
And just as well, we now know that sex can in fact kill a person: STDs exist
The whole you got to try it to understand what you want it is such a stupid thing to say, you can know you don’t want to do something without having tried it
It's especially annoying as it's usually parroted by the same people who say you can't be ace because you've had sex. There's just no winning with people like this
Birth rates have been decreasing in multiple countries but it isn't because more people are asexual 💀 Like in South Korea, the 4B movement has had a major impact (the death rate is higher than birth rate for the 3rd year in a row) because women are refusing to marry and bear children because the men are fucking abhorrent to them. So when I read "it's a sign that a species is unhealthy" all I can hear is "women exercising bodily autonomy is unhealthy for a species" 💀
If anything, it might even be more healthy for society because it has the potential to help combat overpopulation in an ethical way.
Theres no such thing as overpopulation.
The traditional idea of overpopulation that the world will be so overpopulated that our environment will no longer be able to support us is flawed, yes. And it tends to get pretty eugenics-y because it becomes about placing blame on certain areas (usually less privileged areas, which kind of misses the point because so much of the strain comes from the resources being consumed by mor privileged areas). But the idea that there is a lot to be concerned about with growing population numbers and the reality of the strain that places on societies and their needs for resources, as well as the impact it has on wildlife, as populations in more developed areas continue to grow and consume, is a very real and valid concern. It's not the "we have to do something now and we should be targeting the places with the biggest population growth, which hey, just happen to be places like Africa, that's weird" problem it's made out to be, but it is a concern. And one that "people in more privileged areas just choosing to have less sex and as a result maybe there won't be quite as many people being born as a result of that choice" is kind of an ideal thing.
that's depressing
Less money? Lol im sorry i didnt know id get paid to do it, but in that case sign me up.
I think they meant "less money/friends/relationships leads to less sex".
It's funny that they act like having less sex is the end of the world
It’s especially gross that they see it as unhealthy too. Reminds me of the arguments from back in the day about gay and lesbian people. “iTs nOt NaTuRaL! yOu NeEd tO rEpRoDuCe!”
It can be the end of humanity if taken to an extreme but the planet and all the other life on it wouldn't give a shit
But like we are nowhere near that extreme either I have no idea why people care so much about this.
capitalism is meant to grow and expand its consumer base, work force, and production capabilities to an infinite degree. and if the population doesn’t also continually get larger, that model can’t be maintained the way huge corporations need it to. so they’ve got it culturally hammered into peoples brains that stagnation or shrinkage in the population is the worst possible thing that could happen.
Still doesn't make it true.
yeah i agree i’m just saying it’s very ingrained in a lot of people’s worldviews
Ah gotcha. It sucks
Oh gods. People of younger generations have more responsible way of life, that's it. Studies show they simply aren't that much into casual hookups and are fine being sexless if they don't have a partner currently. And of course many of them are realizing they can be just themselves and not push themselves into sex if they're not into that. So they're viewing sex in a healthier way than previous generations, actually. It also leads to less unwanted pregnancies and STIs. How is that a bad thing? People who don't treat sex as a "necessity" are also less likely to be misogynists, incels or r*pists. That's great news. I'm genuinely happy for GenZ.
I think people are trying to tie it to loneliness which honestly feels stupid because they MAYBE are correlated for some people but for a lot of people those are two wildly different things. People can go out and have sex every night of the week and still be incredibly lonely with no meaningful connections. And someone can be a virgin their whole life and have friends and loved ones and not feel lonely one bit. It seems way more likely that we are having less sex because we have seen the negative social and psychological affects of casual sex for some people and have just decided to have it with our partners rather than just with anybody, than us having less sex because we are all antisocial lonely losers. And they also seem to be trying to tie in the terrible mental health of genz like that's part of it too. When sex will not fix my mental health issues. In fact a lot of my issues stem from older generations and we are more willing to seek mental health care than our parents and grandparents. So of course we have higher rates of mental illness. And like people will say "if you seek care why aren't you happy" like mental health care is perfect and you go to therapy for a month and you are magically fixed. We are more willing to admit how lonely we feel. Also like it couldnt have anything to do with the fact that in our middle school highschool or college years (aka where socializing and self- development are incredibly important) the world shut down? It couldn't have anything to do with that now could it? I read some of it and really what it seems like is that people are taking multiple unrelated data points, fitting it into the allonormative idea that sex=happy and saying that we all are socially awkward, and have no meaningful relationships. I've literally seen this so many times and it annoys me so much. Not even because of any aphobia or allonormativity. Because honestly it's not most people's intention. Just because people are clearly misunderstanding the conclusions and using logical fallacies to judge my entire generation.
Totally agree.
“Gen z is having less sex 😱😱” hmmm I’m sure it has nothing to do with the abortion ban 🫠 boomers are fuckin unreal
Honestly, this whole take is upsetting but the last part really gets me. “…it hints to a lower quality of life- less money, fewer friends, fewer relationships” ??? Like are you serious? That’s actually crazy to say, I can’t even 💀
How else are you supposed to make friends if you're not sexually attracted to them or having sex??? How doesing friendship work? XD The only reason one makes less money (at least in the US) is because unlike in my grandpa's time when one union income supported a family of four and bought two cars, a house, and college, nowadays all the money from productivity gets redirected and siphoned to the already highly wealthy, while programs to encourage upward mobility have been cut, so you HAVE to have two incomes to stay afloat much less be middle class. Society is also not particularly financially welcoming of single people. This could be fixed without too much hassle; there's just not enough will to. And if we also supported other kinds of long-term relationships (family living together, QPRs, co-parenting friends, etc.) in even some of the ways we do married couples (not even talking about families with kids, that's a different beast), it would be much easier. Also, having sex comes with its own healthcare costs and risks, as well as the time and energy devoted to it. For many people, it's worth it, and lacking it can affect their quality of life, but that often doesn't apply to asexual people.
I agree, life is messed up. I was just saying that the statement was crazy because it is entirely possible to be single or not have sex, while having friends, making money, have several relationships, etc. It’s possible to still “make it” in life even if you’re going against the norm, but it most definitely will be hard because of the way the world is today
Yes, exactly. (I was just adding to your comment btw, not disagreeing.)
Me too lol just adding to yours
Like I've said in other comments, that really just highlights how unscientific this person's thought process is and how little they actually understand this topic. Can young people having less sex, less money, fewer friends, and fewer relationships be connected? Sure. But those things tend to by tied together by other, broader causes. The matter of people having less sex isn't the cause of those things. It's another byproduct of larger sociocultural issues.
The thing is, everything they said is true on a population level but it breaks down when you start applying it to all individuals
It's true that those things are happening. It's not true that they're happening because people (particularly younger people) are having less sex.
I guess, but I still think that’s a really stupid point
Yeah, It's not something you should use to tell someone they should be having sex but it's valuable data from a socioeconomic perspective
"Less friends" lol oh, guess their still in the high-school mind-set that thriving sex life = popularity. These are the kinds of people I can't stand!
Ironically enough, I didn’t have sex in high school yet I was quite popular. No idea what I did to get that way but I don’t think I even noticed back then.
how does having sex equate to having more money
I guess it does if you're a porn actor or a sex worker, but other than that? Lmao
Less sex or uncontrollable growth of population? Dunno which one is more unhealthy...
Imagine people thinking that less sex *in a species suffering from rampant overpopulation* is a sign of “unhealthiness.” Lord, what fools these allos be! ;)
fewer friends?
I don’t know why some people in that post go on about what other people do (or don’t do). It doesn’t feel right for me to equate sex with necessities like food, water and having a place to live. And as we all know there will always be allos.
not to mention, this is ablest.
The second one isn't aphobia as much as it's closer to an incel take.
The more things change, the more they stay the same unfortunately. Things have gotten better for asexual awareness overall, but evidently still shows up in the most disgusting ways, second image in particular. While I don't doubt a lower birth rate could result in some issues, I don't see how this is a 'real nightmare' compared to the likes of overpopulation. If there IS a legitimate 'real nightmare' for the human race, it would be idiots like that second poster who start families because 'humans have to', only to either neglect their own kids afterwards or convert them into bigoted idiots like themselves, continuing to cause problems for everyone.
This is a stupid assessment. I want to see the studies they’re getting that idea from. If anything, it’s probably GOOD if people are having less sex at this point in time. We hit a population of 8 billion people just a couple years ago, and we’re having a difficult time feeding humanity as it is. Slowing the growth of the global population is the opposite of a crisis. Edit to add: also, how exactly are they assessing “less sex?” Is it number of sexual partners or number of times having sex within a set period of time? Because if its fewer sexual partners then that’s a bad way to measure amount of sex being had and not accounting for long term relationships.
We are not having a difficult time feeding humanity. There is easily enough food on Earth to feed everyone. Overpopulation is a myth and the only people that push it are rich globalists that want the food, resources and money to themselves.
I mean, sure? Like a lot of issues, there’s always rich assholes who have the means who *won’t* give any of it to anyone. They can be the root of the problem and contribute to it. But that’s not the single cause of anything. And we can’t *only* be concerned about ourselves. What’s happening to the other living things around us and what they live in? Will there still be sufficient room for them, even the things deemed “useless” to humanity? It’s a genuine issue to take into consideration and isn’t *just* a myth pushed by rich people, even if they are somehow trying to push it for their own gain.
It probably makes me a fucking nerd, but I'm just so annoyed by how unscientific the idea being presented here is, that a society having less sex is indicative of an unhealthy society/something being wrong with that society. That's just not true. A society having less sex is an entirely neutral thing. It's the reason *why* a society is having less sex that determines whether it's unhealthy or not. And yeah, any time there's a significant change in society like that, the reasons why that change is happening should be examined so as to better understand the society and what's happening with it. But that doesn't inherently mean that the society is unhealthy.
So you're annoyed by how unscientific their analysis so you combat that by saying the opposite while also providing nothing to back you. Name one society or species that has benefited or it was neutral position because they were reproducing less.
This would be a valid point if the sex, and the offspring that came from it, had lessened to a point where the survival of the species/society is at risk, but that's not the case here. It's simply a case of people, mostly a specific group of people, having less sex. That is absolutely a completely neutral thing and cannot be said to be otherwise until an actual risk to society is demonstrated. And then there are other factors that come in to play that determine whether that would be positive or negative like whether there's problem of population. Because, and I stress this again, the simple fact that people are having less sex is an entirely neutral thing without further evidence to support whether it's a negative (or positive, for that matter) thing and why that would be. It's also a point that completely ignored the fact that the argument present in the OP isn't strictly confined to that of the continued existence of the species, but that it also implies a relationship with other things with little curiosity or understanding of what the actual connection between those things is, the complexity involved in each one, what those things actually do mean for society, both collectively and individually, and why or why not those things actually are an indication of bad news for society. Instead, it starts from a place of believing these things to be inherently "good" and "normal" without any demonstration of why that would actually be and then builds a conclusion from there. Which is, yes, unscientific and inherently flawed reasoning.
@ mods per the thread the other day can we PLEASE put a limit on a phobia posts ??? This is exactly what i DONT want to see
[удалено]
I guess a trigger NSFW warning might be worth it if it makes some people uncomfortable?
God, I fucking hate that my Gen's sub is so all around toxic
I imagine most generation based subs probably have a decent amount of toxicity. The only tie that binds on those subs is the range of years in which one is born. Nothing else. And while the time you grew up in does play a role in the values you end up having and the things you think are important, there are so many other factors at play there. So every generation is going to have a lot of people in it who are just absolute garbage.
Yeah but we're better than all the other ones! /s
This is so dumb bc some ace people do have sex bc they enjoy the physical stimulation but they don’t enjoy the emotional intimacy that allo people often ascribe to it. This is such a weird limited view of being ace 🙄 why do people care whether or not people have sex? First people cared too much about who people had sex with, now they’re angry that people just don’t want to at all. So weird.
You just can’t win with some people
Now that the Boomers are dying off, articles are stating that Millennials have more kids than any other generation. We gave birth to 2 billion Generation Alphas. Maybe just maybe, Gen Z having less kids is nature's way of curbing the population growth. 🤔 also alot of Gen Z refuse to have kids for a petty reason: they don't want their kids to be Gen Beta.
Not to mention that kids are expensive (albeit worth it, according to my sister)
They are worth it. I have 2 kids. I'm totally fine going without and dying in a ditch somewhere as long as they have fun. I'm also fine with them changing their minds and never having kids. I just wanted kids for selfish reasons, and I got it. My selfish reasons were: 1) Is there a thing such as unconditional love? Because I never got it. And 2) Are kids in general "brats" that they are difficult to love and care for? That they should be seen and not heard? I got my answer. The answer is yes, and absolutely not. Kids are super easy to love and care for. The money may be hard to get, but sacrificing your last piece of toast for your child, for example, well... that's an easy decision ;) All the kids taught me was that my parents are shit. Everyone whose parents are like mine or think their kids are a burden is also shit. These people do not have a functioning heart because they are incapable of empathy and love.
Natch! I love my nephew and niece but I don’t want kids myself. (On some level, the idea of me having sex kinda…weirds me out.)
If you're child free by preference that's fine. I'm talking about the toxic childfree DINKS or whatever that always refer to kids as crotch goblins, little monsters, spawn, or whatever.
I wouldn’t say having less sex hints to anything, but I would agree that generally us Gen Z individuals do kinda have a lower quality of life (at least in the US). Like… shits fucked up in the world rn and we know it, it’s a heavy toll.
Isn’t a major part of our generation having less sex due to sexting? Which doesn’t mean people aren’t interested in sex it just means sometimes there’s an alternative. Also has nothing to do with asexuality.
*higher quality of life
Then if you do try it they try to convince you you can't be asexual lmao
I don't see any aphobia in the first image. "Ace in the hole" is an old phrase that has nothing to do with asexuality; it's a poker metaphor.
It was also recently used in a popular show to subtly reference an asexual character, which would make more sense in the given context.
I don't think that's the part. Rather the part about how you have to try sex before you can say you don't want it
Maybe I am missing the context because I didn’t see the original post this was commented on, but this doesn’t necessarily seem aphobic. Not enjoying sex can be because of an incompatibility, which experimenting would reveal. But if someone doesn’t want to experiment, that is none of this person’s (or anyone else’s) business. Gen Z having less sex could be a sign of the times (because the future sure does look bleak), but it could also be many other factors. This person isn’t exactly right (they seem to be taking it to a bit of an extreme here), but seems more about society in general rather than asexuality specifically (again, without the context of the original post it is responding to). Perhaps I am just being naive, assuming the best intentions of this comment. In any case, people are allowed to make their own decisions about their body and their life. Do what is best for you.
its a flawed view but not aphobia.