The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Asexuality - sexual orientation, or disorder?
Spawnbroker
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Part of the Help / Advice thread that started it all:
So I was thinking about this, and I'm kind of interested in the prevailing attitude toward asexuality even on a progressive forum such as PA. Most people, even while claiming that they are not attempting to 'fix' the person in question, still end up attempting to prescribe some sort of treatment option or psychological care, as if the person really was broken.
I looked it up on Wikipedia (yes, I know), and Alfred Kinsey had a bit to say on asexuality, I'll just quote directly from there:
I had a girlfriend in college that was asexual, though she didn't describe herself that way. It was an endless amount of frustration for both of us in the relationship because I didn't understand what was going on, why she didn't want me, and she didn't know how to tell me that she just wasn't interested in things like that without hurting my feelings. Looking back on it, it's one of the things that I most regret about my past relationships; not knowing enough about the situation to really be a good boyfriend and just walk away before she got hurt.
I feel the prevailing attitude toward asexuality is that it's a psychological or hormonal problem that needs to be fixed, and so here are my questions for you Debate and Discourse:
Is asexuality a disorder or a lifestyle choice, such as homosexuality?
Should we attempt to 'fix' asexuals so they can live 'normal' lives?
Have you ever had an asexual boyfriend/girlfriend and give some insight as to what that was like for you?
Do you feel that a person with a normal sex drive can survive in a monogamous relationship without sex, if everything else was wonderful about the other person?
Aaaaaaand go!
Spawnbroker wrote: »I do however think there is probably some kind of biological or psychological reason. It isn't normal to not want sex, and I can't think of any reason anyone would choose not to. People who religiously choose celibacy even have a hard time keeping it in their pants. Given what she is missing, she should seek some kind of professional help.
This line of thinking is the wrong way to go about it. Making her feel like she needs to be fixed because she isn't normal isn't going to help anything, and i strongly advise against this course of action. As I said before, this is roughly equivalent to the Jesus Camps that fundamentalist parents send their kids to in order to 'fix' their gayness.Furthermore (by my understanding, at least), unlike homosexuality, a very low or non-existant sex drive is something that can occur for a number of physical or psychological reasons that can be treated.
What's the harm in looking to make sure there isn't an underlying cause? It's not a matter of needing to be "fixed", it's a reasonable consideration that this could be a symptom of something treatable.
Living "sexless" might be perfectly normal and natural for people who truly are an "X" on the Kinsey scale, but they only make up a portion of the people on Earth with a reduced or MIA libido. The remainder may have (with the appropriate treatment) the potential to regain (or gain in the first place) as aspect of themselves that is not only enjoyable, but considered important by what I dare say would be the vast majority of the partners she's likely to meet over the years, barring intentionally looking for similarly asexual friends/partners/whatevers.
To be clear, I have nothing but contempt for people who would try to "fix" a person that is gay, except I strongly suspect there are significantly fewer mental or physical conditions that cause homosexuality than there are treatable conditions that cause an utter lack of a sex drive.
I Am Not An Expert/Doctor/Etc, so if someone better informed in the field wishes to correct my assumptions/assertions, please feel free to do so.
So I was thinking about this, and I'm kind of interested in the prevailing attitude toward asexuality even on a progressive forum such as PA. Most people, even while claiming that they are not attempting to 'fix' the person in question, still end up attempting to prescribe some sort of treatment option or psychological care, as if the person really was broken.
I looked it up on Wikipedia (yes, I know), and Alfred Kinsey had a bit to say on asexuality, I'll just quote directly from there:
Wikipedia wrote:In the mid-twentieth century, Alfred Kinsey rated individuals from 0 to 6 according to their sexual orientation from heterosexual to homosexual. He also included a category he called "X" for individuals with "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions". He labeled 1.5% of the adult male population as X.[8][9] In Kinsey's second book, "Sexual behavior in the human female," Kinsey reported this break down of individuals who are X: unmarried females = 14-19%, married females = 1-3%, previously married females = 5-8%, unmarried males = 3-4%, married males = 0%, previously married males = 1-2%.[9]
I had a girlfriend in college that was asexual, though she didn't describe herself that way. It was an endless amount of frustration for both of us in the relationship because I didn't understand what was going on, why she didn't want me, and she didn't know how to tell me that she just wasn't interested in things like that without hurting my feelings. Looking back on it, it's one of the things that I most regret about my past relationships; not knowing enough about the situation to really be a good boyfriend and just walk away before she got hurt.
I feel the prevailing attitude toward asexuality is that it's a psychological or hormonal problem that needs to be fixed, and so here are my questions for you Debate and Discourse:
Is asexuality a disorder or a lifestyle choice, such as homosexuality?
Should we attempt to 'fix' asexuals so they can live 'normal' lives?
Have you ever had an asexual boyfriend/girlfriend and give some insight as to what that was like for you?
Do you feel that a person with a normal sex drive can survive in a monogamous relationship without sex, if everything else was wonderful about the other person?
Aaaaaaand go!
Steam: Spawnbroker
Spawnbroker on
0
Posts
I don't believe that homosexual preferences are a lifestyle choice. It's a largely biological difference, but neither a good nor bad one, that is further shaped by culture.
If they want to be fixed.
An old idea in psychology is that a psychologically healthy person should be able to love and work. It could be argued that asexuality is a detriment to one's ability to form an intimate love affair - however, I don't see why. They just need to find other asexuals.
That said, it is true that sex drive can be affected by disease, hormones, prescription drugs, even nutrition. I'm wary of placing sex drive in the same category as sexual orientation because the former seems much more variable than the latter.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Pretty much.
And I disgree strongly that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. It's highly, highly genetic in nature, with evidence for environmental triggers. But it's not a choice.
You old girlfriend didn't put out and now you think she should be fixed?
Holy fucking shit batman...holy fucking shit...
I'm having a little trouble really agreeing with this. I'm certain there must be a great number of perfectly contented blind folks, say, but that isn't enough for me to say it's not a disorder. I don't want to get into an Aristotelian thing about the perfection of the eye, but I do think that all else being equal we should help people to not be blind.
There is a risk with establishing asexuality as a personal identity (in the way we might identify as straight or gay) specifically because there are so many potential causes.
If you self-identify as asexual, and then your asexuality goes away later in life, I could see that as potentially threatening to one's sense of self.
However, that's a tiny nearly negligible drop in the bucket compared to the damage done to a person's sense of self by telling them "no, you're broken, you need help" just because they don't like to have sex as much as you. (Not that I'm saying the OP did that - I'm exaggerating a little for effect.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It can if they want to be interested in sex, or if there are cultural pressures on them to be interested in sex.
I don't think you can equate a physical disability with a personality/sexual preference. For the one, it's impacting one's daily life in a clearly negative way (that is, sight itself is inherently a positive thing for one's well-being [aiding in self-preservation, daily life, etc.]). The only way for this to be analogous to sex would be if the act of sex is inherently positive to the continued well being of the individual (you could probably argue that the lack of it prevents further generations from carrying your genes but I'd think this is more a concern of an animal than a human).
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
No.
Maybe I should rephrase this. How is not being interested in sex be a negative in any fashion that it should be classified as a disability.
To the former, well in that case that'd provide a clear indication that in their case it might be some underlying issue they need to resolve.
Cultural pressure doesn't seem to speak much to the issue of whether asexuality is inherently good/bad in and of itself.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Especially because those cultural pressures insinuate that they should want sex. If anything, some people are quick to adopt asexuality as part of their identity because it's a defense mechanism. If the world is telling them they are supposed to want sex, and they're under pressure to want sex, the easiest way to subvert the feelings of "I'm broken" is to say, "I'm [strike]broken[/strike] different, but proud of it!"
I certainly would not regard the cultural pressures as necessarily valid, but in combination the effect would be negative.
In that case treating the culture would most likely be more appropriate.
to clarify: I agree with Cat.
If you mean disability as defined by the law, it isn't.
How does not being able to see? I don't consider my lack of telepathic abilities to be negative per se, but I'm sure a telepath would.
I'm just trying to say that whether or not I'm suffering isn't necessarily the full definition of a disorder.
While it could very well be a defence mechanism, this still doesn't speak to whether or not asexuality itself is a 'problem' or something that actually has worth. You could very well adopt a defence mechanism that actually is a perfectly acceptable/valuable outlook on life. I'd say that in that case it's the act of latching onto a defence mechanism as the underlying problem (and what caused it) and not the thing that was latched onto.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Well, defining something as a disorder - in a medical context - requires establishing a certain standard of normalcy. Normal people see, abnormal people do not.
We have to be suspicious of such attempts in the behavioral arena as it can mask attempts at exerting social or moral control without legitimate reason - attempts to "cure" homosexuality are the most obvious example.
So we have to start by asking, basically, "Does this person feel that they are being harmed by the condition? Are they unable to stop harming other people due to this condition?" If the answer to both questions is "no" for the vast majority of people with said condition, then we should put the brakes on attempts to medicalize it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No actually, I'm the one arguing against the fixing, and it wasn't as simple as not putting out.
Then maybe?
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
How are psychosocial consequences any less real?
It is not a disability any more than homosexuality if it doesn't bug the person.
Sex drive varies from person to person - some people it's strong, some people it's weak. And some people, it seems, have none at all.
Also, if someone is "asexual" and desperately wants to stop being so, it implies to me that either a)they're really not asexual and they just have trouble expressing or acting on their sexuality, or b) they're letting the dominant cultural images around them pressure them into being something they're not, which is a problem (but not with their sexuality, or rather their lack thereof).
This. Saying that if they don't want to be fixed they're healthy and if they want to be fixed they must have something wrong with them that is causing them to be asexual is misleading. A lot of gay people go through a self-loathing period where they desire to be straight because society is telling them something is wrong with them. They must be broken somehow. This is less so now, but nobody could argue against this 50 years ago.
However, I don't know of any cases where homosexuality is the result of some sort of trauma or hormonal imbalance, but being asexual can be. If someone is concerned they can go see a doctor and/or a therapist but there needs to come a time where it should be okay to say "there really is nothing wrong with you, you're just not interested in sex."
That said, if someone is in a relationship with an asexual person while they themselves want to have sex then it really is best to either break it off or come to some agreement where one partner can have a sexual relationship outside the couple. People need to be adult about this. Of course, this is not a case of OMG I'VE BEEN DATING THIS GIRL FOR A MONTH AND SHE WON'T PUT OUT but rather a long-term relationship in which both parties discuss their sexual desires, or lack thereof, and whether the relationship is worth it.
Seriously--people have the autonomy to make their own choices and to hold their own values. Perhaps an asexual person would feel happy to avoid all the frustration and unhappiness that sexual desire, especially when unrequited, can inspire. And perhaps they would not, and would prefer to get a glimpse of what they were supposedly missing out on. But regardless, given that no one is seriously advocating forced treatment (I hope), the choices will always lie with them.
So what is this discussion really about? Do we want to discuss the relative benefits and costs associated with asexuality? Which one we would prefer to be?
As a counterpoint (playing a little bit of devil's advocate here), sex is a fundamental function of human life. Somebody who is homosexual can do everything a heterosexual can, they just do it with the same gender. Somebody who is asexual is impaired in their ability to enjoy the full experience of human life.
In general, though, we have to default to the old behavioral health standby: does it disturb the patient? Does it cause the patient to hurt others? No? Then it's not treatable.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's not a bad analogy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't know how credible the idea that sex is fundamental to human life. The lack of it doesn't result in a person unable to function in society.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
It's worth noting that asexual people are, of course, capable of sex. They just lack interest in it. An asexual person is capable of having a sexual relationship for the sake of their partner, though, of course, it will still exist as an issue in the relationship.
Defining what's fundamental to human life is going to always be steeped in cultural mores. It can just as easily be reversed to say you're missing out on the fundamental function of human life by not being bothered by constant thoughts of sex.
In this case, though, due to the host of potential causes of reduced libido the answer may very well be yes depending on the case.
There is an industry built around treating people with reduced libidos due to hormonal imbalances or other medications, etc.
I would argue that this is a social issue made difficult by the lack of resources for asexual people to find each other.
Can two asexual people be perfectly happy together in a relationship? If so, then what we need to fix is the social network for asexuals.
The situation would be somewhat analogous to a homosexual trying to find a partner in a homophobic society. Of course their attempts to strike up heterosexual relationships - matching the dominant heterosexual mores of their culture - would be frustrating! That means there's something wrong with their community, not that there's anything wrong with them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think that realizing one's own, and coping with one's own, asexuality can be very jarring in light of the incredible buffeting of sexual ideas and imagery in our (western, American) culture. If they get over it, though, and say, "hey, I'm OK with this," I don't think there's anything that should be (could be, can be) done to change them.
On the other hand, if they continue to be unhappy with it, there's already a body of literature about things that asexuality may be a symptom of, and pursuit of those might let the person return to the world of the sexual. But that's voluntary, and it's all patient-directed, and it's just addressing the etymology of a symptom that is distressing the person. It's not a value judgment for or against asexuality.
Hurray for agreement!
However, it is also an orientation, in that we should respect the wishes of the person in question in terms of whether they want to consider themselves "broken" or "different", and in that asexuals (and homosexuals) should be legally protected against discrimination.
In other words, in a logical sense, it is a disorder, it is "not normal", but there's nothing wrong with that, and it's not an excuse to go forcing people to change.