• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

xNTx sexuality and romantic desire

State your sexual/romantic preference

  • sexual/ romantic

    Votes: 21 60.0%
  • sexual/ a-romantic

    Votes: 9 25.7%
  • asexual/ romantic

    Votes: 4 11.4%
  • asexual/ a-romantic

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Total voters
    35

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
Location
West Virginia
#1
I am curious to find out what NT preferences trend towards regarding romance and sexuality. I have no true hypothesis, I simply want to see if the data has proportions that differ from the standard population.

Definitions-

Sexuality; hetero/homo/bi/pan/etc. sexual (sexual attraction toward another human being) vs asexual (no sexual attraction nor sexual impulse toward any); in either case romantic preference does not apply

Romanticism; romantic (desire to have relationships, love etc.) vs a-romantic (no desire nor impulse for love or relationships); in either case sexual preference does not apply

Thread Rules-

Only NTs may take the poll part of the thread :beatyou:
I don't care to hear about your preferences in the thread simply answer the anonymous poll
You may however discuss theory and the subject to your heart's content :)
 

Synthetix

og root beer
Local time
Yesterday, 18:15
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
779
Location
fajitas
#2
Sexual/Loose romantic i.e. loving someone and being close to them without confining boundaries and expectations. Relationship status not labeled. (wife, gf, friend with benefits, fuck buddy, etc.)
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
#3
Whenever I think of love and sexuality one of the four following events occurs:

--"Yuck! How could I possibly become a slave to my emotions and join the reproduction game? Eugh!"
--"I'm already married to science and logic, and another lady, no matter how lovely, will only complicate my life."
--"Hnnnng! That's a sexy girl."
--"Maybe, somewhere out there is a girl for me: Smart, educated, funny, sweet, loving, and warm. I'd sweep her off her feet and we'd live happily ever after."

I once met a girl like the one described in event four on a connecting flight from Frankfurt: Her name was Elise. I wish that I could have met her coming up the steps to my town library, and not beside me on a plane. Think of what could have been! But even in having known her for only a few hours, I gained something: the knowledge of what I'm looking for in friendship and in love. So perhaps another Elise is out there, hoping to find a Duxwing. :)

-Duxwing

[Kuu: Name edited for privacy]
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
#5
@Duxwing Erm, is it good to use real names? Do consider editing.
I made the name up already. :) Her real name remains with me. ;) I mean, seriously, who names their kid "Taconi"? It's like a bad food pun. But if you insist, fine.

-Duxwing
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Yesterday, 18:15
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,841
Location
California, USA
#6
I don't understand asexuality, how a person could have no sexual desire. Or if there's just a conscious rejection of it, I understand that, but I'm inclined to believe that a "lack of desire" is just deep repression and not a true absence.
 

HDINTP

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 03:15
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
566
Location
In my own world
#7
I don't understand asexuality, how a person could have no sexual desire. Or if there's just a conscious rejection of it, I understand that, but I'm inclined to believe that a "lack of desire" is just deep repression and not a true absence.
agree
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
Location
West Virginia
#8
@EyeSeeCold
@HDINTP

Asexuality does not mean that a person has no libido or anything like that, it means that a person just does not want physical sex, and is not attracted to a person. It doesn't have to be denial, and a person may have sexual energy which the need to dispel, they just lack a human need. Picture raw, undirected sexual energy, that has no target or goal. It requires no outside body to satisfy itself. If one was of this temperament, they would be self sufficient, and such is the case with the asexual. So in truth, asexuality is not lack of sexual desire, but lack of desire for outside interaction.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a person is a Biromantic asexual. This means that they like to have romantic relationships with both guys and girls, but sex with neither. One can not say that they are in denial about their sexual preferences, because they admit and fully embrace their romantic side. If one admits they like both, why wouldn't they go the next logical step and admit they like sex with both too? In this case personal acceptance is not an issue, as evidenced by the admission of biromanticism. Simply put, this desire for sex does not exist, therefore, they are biromantic but not bisexual.
 
Local time
Today, 02:15
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
575
Location
Far away from All This
#9
I don't understand asexuality, how a person could have no sexual desire. Or if there's just a conscious rejection of it, I understand that, but I'm inclined to believe that a "lack of desire" is just deep repression and not a true absence.
I do see deep repression or conscious rejection as asexuality because, over time, the impulse is lost and it becomes more and more subconscious. But I do agree that there is no such thing as true asexuality (being born without impulses), as that would be entirely contrary to evolution.

When I think about sexuality, I usually think either "disgusting" (no offense, this is just my first reaction) or, like Duxwing, "I'm already married to my work and studies." I agree with GodofOrder's explanation of asexuality.
When I think about relationships, I think of a waste of time. It seems like a game to me; trying to last as long as possible by saying the right things at the right times. I've never been in a romantic relationship, so I could be wrong about this. Please let me know if I am wrong, as I would really like to better understand.

I think it would be interesting to make this a poll based on gender as well as temperament.

SW
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 02:15
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#10
I think you'll find that on average, most people answered for sexuality/romantic. If this result says the same, it just means that NTs are more human than we want to believe we are.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 02:15
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
#11
Posted in wrong thread. Sorry.
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
Location
West Virginia
#12
I think you'll find that on average, most people answered for sexuality/romantic. If this result says the same, it just means that NTs are more human than we want to believe we are.
On average, yes, but I suspect a higher proportion of a-romantics or asexuals than the general population's measly 1%. But not enough data to say...
 

HDINTP

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 03:15
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
566
Location
In my own world
#13
@EyeSeeCold
@HDINTP

Asexuality does not mean that a person has no libido or anything like that, it means that a person just does not want physical sex, and is not attracted to a person. It doesn't have to be denial, and a person may have sexual energy which the need to dispel, they just lack a human need. Picture raw, undirected sexual energy, that has no target or goal. It requires no outside body to satisfy itself. If one was of this temperament, they would be self sufficient, and such is the case with the asexual. So in truth, asexuality is not lack of sexual desire, but lack of desire for outside interaction.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a person is a Biromantic asexual. This means that they like to have romantic relationships with both guys and girls, but sex with neither. One can not say that they are in denial about their sexual preferences, because they admit and fully embrace their romantic side. If one admits they like both, why wouldn't they go the next logical step and admit they like sex with both too? In this case personal acceptance is not an issue, as evidenced by the admission of biromanticism. Simply put, this desire for sex does not exist, therefore, they are biromantic but not bisexual.
So it is quite possible that it happened to me. Do you thinik we can have no sexual need for some people in our lives and for some yes or does it have to be one-sided? Not genders differences just in one line...?
 

Magus

Active Member
Local time
Today, 02:15
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
114
#14
I went for sexual a-romanic. Have only had 1 girlfriend but unfortunately it didn't work out at all. I've done the whole INTP cycle of isolation - craving contact - social ninja - falls in love too quickly - thinks self out of love several weeks later etc. Breakup was still hard though because Fe as usual is kept way out of the loop and then just wells up into a mess of self pity for a few weeks. That was 18 months ago.

Having reflected on it all, I just want to avoid relationships/meaningful others as I can't deal with the Fe ups and downs until I've worked out the rest of my life. I don't know if that makes me *truly* a-romantic because I've fallen for people before but getting anywhere romantically isn't a priority for me at all.

Sexuality is a different story, just about everyone is 'sexual' to some extent, its a hormone based game which you can't really think yourself out of.

On a side note I'm fascinated as to how much effort both sexes put into gaining attention from their opposite. Especially looking at my male friends, its quite a depressing notion that so much human endeavour is driven by biologically preordained processes. One can only dream of a more rational world in the future. :borg:
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
Location
West Virginia
#15
So it is quite possible that it happened to me. Do you think we can have no sexual need for some people in our lives and for some yes or does it have to be one-sided? Not genders differences just in one line...?
An asexual would feel no sexual attraction toward either males nor females. They may have sexual energy, but it is not stimulated nor directed at either sex. Thus the idea of having sex with another individual does not appeal to the asexual.

Though some may develop specific attachment to specific individuals, but I think this has much less to do with gender or sex and more to do with people, if that makes sense. Often though, concerning romance, one may have a specific preference, but this is related not to sexual interaction but only the relationship itself. e.g. bi-romantic, homo-romantic, hetero-romantic

Or perhaps an asexual is in a relationship and simply engages in intercourse for the love of their partner, but not for the sake of themselves.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Yesterday, 18:15
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,841
Location
California, USA
#16
I think you'll find that on average, most people answered for sexuality/romantic. If this result says the same, it just means that NTs are more human animalistic than we want to believe we are.
:twisteddevil:


@EyeSeeCold

Asexuality does not mean that a person has no libido or anything like that, it means that a person just does not want physical sex, and is not attracted to a person.
It doesn't have to be denial, and a person may have sexual energy which the need to dispel, they just lack a human need. Picture raw, undirected sexual energy, that has no target or goal. It requires no outside body to satisfy itself. If one was of this temperament, they would be self sufficient, and such is the case with the asexual. So in truth, asexuality is not lack of sexual desire, but lack of desire for outside interaction.

Let's say for the sake of argument that a person is a Biromantic asexual. This means that they like to have romantic relationships with both guys and girls, but sex with neither. One can not say that they are in denial about their sexual preferences, because they admit and fully embrace their romantic side. If one admits they like both, why wouldn't they go the next logical step and admit they like sex with both too? In this case personal acceptance is not an issue, as evidenced by the admission of biromanticism. Simply put, this desire for sex does not exist, therefore, they are biromantic but not bisexual.
Isn't that saying they just haven't found anyone attractive enough? Just because someone is hetero/homo-sexual doesn't mean they like all females or males, it's natural to not be attracted to some people.


I do see deep repression or conscious rejection as asexuality because, over time, the impulse is lost and it becomes more and more subconscious. But I do agree that there is no such thing as true asexuality (being born without impulses), as that would be entirely contrary to evolution.

When I think about sexuality, I usually think either "disgusting" (no offense, this is just my first reaction) or, like Duxwing, "I'm already married to my work and studies." I agree with GodofOrder's explanation of asexuality.
When I think about relationships, I think of a waste of time. It seems like a game to me; trying to last as long as possible by saying the right things at the right times. I've never been in a romantic relationship, so I could be wrong about this. Please let me know if I am wrong, as I would really like to better understand.

I think it would be interesting to make this a poll based on gender as well as temperament.

SW
I understand how relationships can be time consuming, but why do you find sexuality to be disgusting?
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
Location
West Virginia
#17
Isn't that saying they just haven't found anyone attractive enough? Just because someone is hetero/homo-sexual doesn't mean they like all females or males, it's natural to not be attracted to some people.
It has nothing to do with how attractive somebody is. Asexuals can appreciate esthetic beauty in people, but its the same type of attraction one has to art, it isn't sexual. It means, by definition, that one has no sexual attraction to people, regardless of sex or gender.
 
Local time
Today, 03:15
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
#19
NT's are too rational to disregard the implications of being anti-sexual in theory, but of course feelings are another domain.
 
Local time
Today, 02:15
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
Location
Schmocation
#20
celibacy and asexuality are different though.

celibacy is voluntary
asexuality is involuntary

The way I think of asexuality is similar to homosexuality. By this I mean its is a chemical imbalance that causes a change in sexual attraction.

I myself could be considered asexual (I prefer non-sexual) as I have no desire for sex. I understand that there is pleasure to be gained from it, but it does not interest me. For years I thought I was simply weird because I never got the appeal. I'm not the only one however.

Every time conversations come up about sex and people ask for my input, I usually baffle them with my responses. Usually they conclude that I must be gay because I have no desire to have sex with women. But I have no desire to have sex with men either.

Sex just doesn't cross my mind during the days.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 18:15
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
136
Location
Motherboard
#21
celibacy and asexuality are different though.

celibacy is voluntary
asexuality is involuntary

The way I think of asexuality is similar to homosexuality. By this I mean its is a chemical imbalance that causes a change in sexual attraction.

I myself could be considered asexual (I prefer non-sexual) as I have no desire for sex. I understand that there is pleasure to be gained from it, but it does not interest me. For years I thought I was simply weird because I never got the appeal. I'm not the only one however.

Every time conversations come up about sex and people ask for my input, I usually baffle them with my responses. Usually they conclude that I must be gay because I have no desire to have sex with women. But I have no desire to have sex with men either.

Sex just doesn't cross my mind during the days.
How do you draw the line between voluntary and chemical imbalance?
 
Local time
Today, 02:15
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
Location
Schmocation
#22
Well, it's just like you can't choose to be gay. You are either attracted to the same sex or not.

This doesn't mean a heterosexual male can't have sex with another man; they just have no desire to.

The same applies to asexuality.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,630
Location
Charn
#23
Nothing wrong with being an animal in some ways. Aren't human beings technically just bio-animals with self-awareness? :phear:


Isn't that saying they just haven't found anyone attractive enough? Just because someone is hetero/homo-sexual doesn't mean they like all females or males, it's natural to not be attracted to some people.
That last bit is totally true, it's why just because a guy happens to be gay doesn't mean he is eyeing up every other man in the bathroom. Attraction to a category doesn't mean attraction to all members of that category.

I assume, though, that if you have met a lot of people representing a large part of that category and you aren't attracted to anyone in it, it's not irrational to suggest you just not might be into that category of people. Or if you don't feel sexual attraction to anyone, really, even when interacting with a wide range of people, you're likely asexual.

My sexuality is kind of odd. It's typically turned off when I am doing other things (and especially if I'm caught up in a mental activity), but if I'm in a relationship and in proximity to my partner or I'm watching people kiss / do other physically romantic things (even just in a movie), then I feel it click on. For me it seems to be more "out of sight, out of mind." But I definitely am not asexual, since the right context turns it on full-blast.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 18:15
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
136
Location
Motherboard
#24
Well, it's just like you can't choose to be gay. You are either attracted to the same sex or not.

This doesn't mean a heterosexual male can't have sex with another man; they just have no desire to.

The same applies to asexuality.
Asexuality: A) Without sexual feelings or associations or B) Without sex or sexual organs
Celibate: A) Having or involving no sexual relations B) Sexually abstinent

We can agree to disagree, but why do you want to differentiate yourself from Tesla so much?
 
Local time
Today, 02:15
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
2,425
Location
Schmocation
#25
Asexuality: A) Without sexual feelings or associations or B) Without sex or sexual organs
Celibate: A) Having or involving no sexual relations B) Sexually abstinent

We can agree to disagree, but why do you want to differentiate yourself from Tesla so much?
I suppose you could view asexuality as subconscious celibacy.

I was just highlighting the differences as you brought a new category onto the table. ;)
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
Location
West Virginia
#26
Celibacy is like wanting dessert, but abstaining because chocolate mousse is bad for you. Asexuality is like not eating brussels sprouts because you don't like them.
 
Local time
Today, 02:15
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
575
Location
Far away from All This
#27
I understand how relationships can be time consuming, but why do you find sexuality to be disgusting?
That's my first instinct. I'm not sure why. I was never abused in any way, or taught that it was bad. I find it very hard to trust people, which may have something to do with it, as people tell me that sexuality has a lot to do with trust.

SW
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Yesterday, 21:15
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
#28
That's my first instinct. I'm not sure why. I was never abused in any way, or taught that it was bad. I find it very hard to trust people, which may have something to do with it, as people tell me that sexuality has a lot to do with trust.

SW
I feel the same way (as I've noted earlier) but for a different reason: my imagination lets me 'see' inside things provided that I've actually seen inside them before, and I've dissected a fetal pig in my anatomy and physiology class. Thus educated, I imagine-- if not aroused beforehand-- not sensual skin, heaving and sweaty under in the throes of passion, but cold, slimy anatomical cross-sections whose colors are not the bright pastels of the student's primer, but the sickening greens, reds, and purples of real insides, all suffused with the choking, chemical smell of formalyn.

*gag* I think that I'm going to pass out.

Nevertheless, I do receive on benefit from having to see all these horrors. Even if I am aroused beforehand, fetish-fueled imagination will repel me twice as much. Huge breasts? All I can think of is that poor girl's backache. Fisting (of any orifice)? It's not supposed to stretch that much! Leather? Ow! Ow! Ow! Indian sunburn! My soaring imagination, coupled with a healthy degree of self discipline, has left me fetish free for six years running, and I intend to so remain.

-Duxwing
 
Top Bottom