But it's still sexuality if they like them sexually. You can't tell me you bond sexually without having any sexuality whatsoever. That's platonic romance. It's not a couple. Also, are you sure it's 4 for total asexual? That sounds very wrong to me.
Being aromantic I actually had to do a lot of research on that when I realized that two of the guys in my Doctor Who fanfic would become a couple. ... There wasn't a lot. Something about possessiveness, maybe? I don't remember a lot of the details.
Oscar, I'm not arguing with you. What you said was "many asexuals experience relationships eventually" which gives the impression that without sexual attraction (or with diminished sexual attraction), an ace person would be less inclined to seek out romantic relationships. Which isn't true and more accurately describes an aro experience. I'm only responding to what you're saying.
Wait, didn't you say you're a lesbian? How can you be a lesbian and totally asexual? Or did you mean your LGBT because your a full asexual?
You can be a lesbian and be ace. Romantic attraction to women + asexuality. (Not trying to speak for Lilly, just explaining.) But you only consider it a real relationship if there's a sexual component, it seems? And I'm too tired for this now.
The way I imagine it: humans are compelled to eat food, vampires might enjoy food in the moment but there is no compulsion to do it. We have people everywhere
I never said I was a lesbian? I only said I was part of the LGBT community. I'm an aromantic asexual. I'm also non-binary but that isn't important to the conversation.
I'm not a lesbian but this is very much true. Homoromantic asexual are just as ace as aromantic asexuals.
What do you guys think about contagious asexuality/homosexuality as a humane(?) form of population control? For plot, it could also create a temporary role reversal in which heterosexuals become the minority.
Very much agreed. I unfortunately have no answer for this, but just a reminder of what the op's looking for.
Well, in the future if we have cloning it would make less of an impact what orientation you are to children. It'd still be more heterosexual dominated but gay couples could engineer children. To keep the population up. And are we talking national program or weaponry? For both, it's not exactly nice. By weapon standards it's fairly non-cruel but it's still dangerous without other reproduction methods (but didn't you say have them?) And by self-contained standards, that is kinda fascist.
Eugenics is generally associated with nazis, and communism is associated with the USSR because of history. Clone soldiers are used extensively during WW3 by the Chinese, who eventually are forced to accept a treaty and be culturally converted into a second United States by the North American Union. Cloning becomes socially unacceptable in cultures derived from the Union because of its association with China.
My thought is that gay and ace people still want kids. If in-vitro and surrogacy is a thing in your setting that people would have access to, there'd still be kids. I'm willing to bet there'd also be people willing to bite to bullet and screw people they didn't really like for the chance to have kids. I don't understand it personally, but the desire to become a parent is incredibly strong in a lot of people. You'd have fewer accidentals, though, sure. I also wouldn't consider it humane. It's still fundamentally changing a person without their consent. I mean, if people did consent in large numbers for the greater good, that'd be another thing ... but then the question is why wouldn't those people just agree to not reproduce? I can see it being least harmful if a generation underwent some sort of treatment that would mean more of their kids would be ace or gay - you're not altering an existing person, you're (somehow) ensuring that only the people you want to exist are born. Obviously that gets into some eugenics territory, but I can see it being considered moral if we're talking about a world that's truly suffering from overpopulation. But it doesn't solve the problem that ace+gay people will still wants kids. If you're going to bar them from various means of reproduction, why not just do that with the group of unaltered people that you already have? Honestly, it's just needlessly sci-fi answer, imo. Restricting people from having children would be easier and more effective. Forcibly sterilizing people would be easier and more effective. Rolling out ad campaigns about how kids aren't that great anyway and how importing it is to save the planet by not having them in order to influence society away from believing that parenthood is the ultimate life goal in the first place would be the most humane thing, but it would take at least a generation to take effect and isn't very dramatic.
I can see it being used as a light form of eugenics. The smart and upper class are offered immunization while this contagion is released into the unsuspecting ghettos, and yes, the world it overpopulating; cities stack up to the skies like a cyberpunk beehive. Sterilization would simply be too obvious, and people would eventually catch on.
A contagion that renders people sterile would still be more effective, though. Again, gay and ace people still want kids, and would find ways to have them. Say you engineer a sterilizing contagion that won't affect everyone or won't have a %100 success rate on everyone it infects, if stealth is your goal. That's still going to cut your reproduction rates more than banking on gay and ace people who want to be parents just going "well, darn, never mind then".
I don't think the contagion's target demographic would be able to afford alternate reproduction options.
I absolutely believe that they'd be willing to have sex with people they didn't like in order to conceive. Sure, not everyone would do it, but do you want a %100 success rate or not, right? To me it's the obvious answer and I'd assume that a program intending to whittle the population down on a severely overpopulated world would have thought of that outcome and gone for the sure thing. Sneakily sterilize or poison or sicken them through the water supply or any other of the dozens of plans that they have no way to circumvent. I obviously can't tell you how to write your plot, I can only tell you what I'd be incredulous about if I were reading it.
What is survival paranoia in this context? Because survival is usually about one's own genes, so someone else finding it less easy to reproduce would surely be a good, not a bad, thing. Unless you mean homophobia against one's own immediate family members?
I think its amoral to not have a straight pill. "You were born this way and even though we have the technologically, and no matter how much you may want to change, tough shit."
I actually explained this earlier. But I'll do it again. (I love explaining things) Survival paranoia is the snapping twig reflex. It's the instinct, and a very practical one, that if something presents a potential risk, as an unknown, you assume it is dangerous as a caution. You hear a twig snap, you assume it's a predator because it's better safe than sorry. But the problem is ignorant people who don't understand homosexual orientations and have been taught to differentiate themselves from them often get this response misfiring for people that they might know very well. Like their own son or daughter. That's why they often say they feel betrayed and confused like they don't know them. Because they give more weight to it than they should. And so it becomes a survival paranoia thing. This isn't necessarily true for every homophobe (some are just obedient religious people) but the very emotional ones definitely seem to be experiencing a misfire. The extremists like Kevin Swanson (who talks like a maniac about gays) are probably frightened. After all, like a snake our response for fear isn't just flight, it's also fights. So while they might not come off afraid, they actually are. This is why we use the term homophobe, because the people behind it, the worst ones who teach other to do it, are paranoid. (At least this is my amateur understanding)
But why should people want to change? What your talking about isn't a moral flaw, it's just inconvenient. And I don't think it's worth considerable cost and huge potential for misuse to satisfy an insecurity that shouldn't exist. I don't want other people to be ashamed of being gay/bi/pan. Being attracted to the same gender more than the usual flexibility and curiosity is not a bad thing. It just is.
I didn't say people 'should' want to change. I just wrote in a make believe example of someone wanting to, but being unable. Some people want to be taller, there's a procedure for that Some people skinnier, or fatter, there's ones for those too. Why not one for sexual orientation? Why do we have to accept who we were born as with that, but nothing else?
