>>303671Well, whatever specific biological process that causes you to become asexual from trauma could theoretically occur without trauma as something genetic.
>>303693Pretty sure it has, but back when it was first noticed that some animals show no interest in sex, there was no such concept as "sexual orientation."
>>303699No one can ever choose to be asexual. You either desire sex or you don't. Non-asexual celibacy usually only occurs due to complex cultural reasons, which don't really exist in farm animals
>>303706You can call it what you want, but the medical profession doesn't consider it a mental illness. Differing from the norm is not by itself enough to be considered a mental illness.
>>303714Eating is neccessary to survive as an individual. NO individual could last more than about a month without eating. Whereas sex is not an individual-level need; for the species to reproduce SOME individuals need to have sex, but there is no reason why every individual has to have sex. You can starve to death, but you can't die from lack of sex. It's not a valid comparison.
>>303718That same argument could be applied to homosexuals though. And as mentioned above, reproduction is a species-level need, not an individual-level need. I would even say survival is a more basic biological function than reproduction is.
>>303720It's not, however it's only mental illness if it harms yourself or others. Refusing to eat is suicidal, while asexuality doesn't really have a major negative effect like that.
>>303732>This is incredibly wrong. You are here to continue the species existence and the only way to do that is through sex. Everything else you do is to allow for a better environment and more opportunity to bear children And that theory leaves room for the possibility that some could better contribute to the environment without wasting time and energy reproducing themselves.
