"There's no such thing as a sex drive"

My question is; how did they get these numbers? It would be great if we were given a source.

 

This is actually really interesting

 

I am sorry, but I KNOW that I had an increase and decrease in sex drive as a teenager and even now.

 

Semantics.... We pay people to argue over semantics.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

I'm sort of disappointed this wasn't about sex while driving, because I'm pretty sure that DOES exist (although highly inadvisable :lol: ).



Hmm. Even the definitions of words like "spontaneous" and "responsive" seem a little off in the article. If somebody feels desire as a result of "seeing a sexy person" or "having a stray sexy thought", that in itself is a type of responsive reaction, maybe not the same or as direct as physical stimulus but it is a response none the less; because the reaction happens as a result of a trigger.

When I think of "spontaneous" desire I think of the type of sexual arousal that just happens seemingly without any trigger, when you just feel the urge by itself and then sexy thoughts and so on may take place after this feeling occurs, but not necessarily always (as a teenager I could even sometimes have orgasms without any sexual thoughts or other stimulation, although admittedly this was rare). This is my own "primary desire style" as the article would phrase it, and it doesn't seem to be one that is even acknowledged in the definitions. I do also experience the type of "spontaneous" as defined in the article in response to seeing or thinking things, but it is secondary to the more autonomous type of desire that is my default. As for the "responsive" as it is described, I couldn't really say much on that one due to lack of experience, judging by the the only evidence I have (incidental physical contact) in does produce a strong reaction in me, but that's very little to go on from a personal perspective.

It could just be poorly worded. But to be honest the whole idea behind this just seems to be another example of trying to categorize and label people as distinctly different 'types' when actually what you are dealing with is more of a scale: from those who have desire in itself through to those who require mild stimulus, going on to those who need stronger stimulus like physical touch right to those who respond with difficulty or not at all.

It does however make the valid point, that the various ways of experiencing sexual desire are not dysfunctional just because they don't fit a standard mold. I dislike it when people are made to think there is something 'wrong' with them just for being as they are.

 

You naughty little thing, you!

=P

 

Yeah, this is why it's probably a good thing I don't drive! :lol:

 

Yes, I can.

 

I'm not really in the mood for an argument right now, if you don't mind.

 

Although we as individuals might not die in prolonged periods of no sex, the species certainly would. I'd say that counts.

 

What about a 'sex park'? 'Cause my sex life seems stuck.




LOL, I'm terrible...

 

I'm quite sure that few people are thinking of the scientific use of the word "drive" when they talk about a sex drive. The focus of the piece doesn't seem to be on that point as much as it is about how we perceive sexual behaviour from a gendered standpoint; that a typically masculine take on sexuality clouds our view and that other forms of desire aren't naturally aberrant.

 

This is why I question the dichotomy of asexual spectrum / allosexual.

 

[YOUTUBE]knWhp1pGr54[/YOUTUBE]


Bored people, coming up with boring notions, to keep themselves from having boring lives, in order to "make a name" for themselves and get paid for basically doing nothing important in life.

 

:roflmao::roflmao:
:roflmao::roflmao:
:roflmao::roflmao: