**Acid Lamp **and anyone who may be interested, I don’t mind answering questions best I can since I’m here. I’ve never thought of myself as an outsider because of it, and I promise I’m entirely devoid of gravitas.
I’ve always known my feelings (or lack thereof, I guess is the point) were in the tiny minority. I don’t revel in it, and there’s nothing to fix. I’m perfectly content living my life just as it is.
It’s fair only in that it’s naturally to be curious.
And you have a right to be skeptical. Just like I have a right to be skeptical if someone posts that they are married, but do not comport themselves in a way that shows they have any social skills.
I just disagree with you that asexuality is so rare that the wisest position to take is that of skepticism. One percent of the population is not extremely rare. It’s uncommon, yes, but extremely rare would be 1 out of 10000. Not 1 out of 100. And that number is just an estimate based on self-reports. The true number is probably higher. Especially among internet message boarders, who are more likely to find enjoyment socializing on message boards than socializing at bars, picking up women.
I don’t think those are good reasons to care. A good reason would be something that involves your life, your happiness, or that of a loved one. Anything else is busybodyism. I don’t care that people are misidentifying themselves as straight or gay or bisexual–even though I know such people exist. I don’t understand what makes other people take a different approach to other people’s preferences and non-sex lives. Except that it’s always nice to be able to scold people for not conforming when you think it’s easy to.
It may be used because it does allow one to apply a scientific, clinical-sounding term to prolonged virginity that removes some of the stigma attached to such a condition. I won’t argue with you there. But this is a different beef from that stated in the OP. I’m sure if people came up with a totally different word or phraseology, like “sex-free” or “low libido”, people would also hate those terms. At least “asexual” already exists and is in keeping with terms like “homosexual” and “hetersexual”. So I find this to be a weak criticism.
Can you be anymore shallow and judgmental? Clearly anyone who is having a dry spell, but has had sexual desires, is not asexual in the true sense of the word. Just like a guy who gave his friend a blow-job in the seventh grade that one time in the coat room, but has had heterosexual sex the rest of his life might be stretching things if he said he was bisexual. The thing is, why would I try to psychoanalyze this guy? What am I going to gain by correcting him or judging his motives? Or automatically doubting him, without knowing why he says he’s bisexual? Maybe although his behavior shows him to be a heterosexual, his attraction is bisexual. I don’t know! And it’s not my place to question him. It’s a waste of my time to spend more than a second thinking about it.
I’m not a huge fan of AVEN, because I find all those definitions and labels they use to be confusing–which renders the labels useless IMHO. I DO think there are people there who are overthinking their low sex drives, for whatever reason. But I don’t think these people are very common. If they want to weird out like that, it’s kind of their problem. They believe themselves to be the way they say they are, and no amount of scolding from the “normals” is going to correct them. As I said before, either they will make the discovery on their own or they won’t. I don’t see the problem in letting them figure it out on their own and leave the psychoanalysis to their therapists.
It’s not anything we need to think about, either. That means all this psychoanalysis bullshit is a waste of time. You don’t know why a person is saying they are asexual unless you get all up in their business (or they are frank with you …which I have a feeling you’d interpret as “parading” or “broadcasting”…which would mark them as a “wannabe”. A big-time Catch-22).
Those feelings of irritation that you have…that’s YOUR problem. It’s not the other person’s job to convince you or assuage your negativity. If all they talk about is their lack of sexiness, then by all means stop listening to them (I wouldn’t be able to listen to that either). But I would at least try to view the thing as being neutral rather than as a symptoms of pathology or a defense mechanism. Being argumentative isn’t going to convince people they are wrong. If anything, that’s the most sure-fire way of making people dig in their heels.
Quibble: 1% of a population is not “extremely rare”. That means 3 millions folks in the US are asexual, IF there is a 1% prevalence rate.
In terms of epidemiology, “1 in a million” is approaching “extremely rare” status. Not 1 in a hundred. 1 in 100 of my patients have HIV. Which means I see about 3 patients a week with that condition.
I have trouble understanding why normally-sexual people get so worked up about this sort of thing. You like chocolate, I like vanilla. You like math, I like biology. You like sports, I’d rather get a tooth drilled than sit through a baseball game. You like sex, I’m not interested.
I know sex is a much bigger deal for most people than chocolate/vanilla. I just can’t relate.
The only reason someone may care is to compare a person’s behavior with themselves and determine if they are “normal” or not.
A-sexuality may be a biological factor or a behavioral result. In any case it’s up to the individual that chose it to establish it for themselves.
All others that wonder and try to analyze the reasons behind such decision, have their own unanswered questions to deal with before they criticize anyone else.
This is why these conversations rarely go anywhere productive. I’ve got no dog in this fight at all. I do find the issue to be interesting though in a detached sort of way.
Think about how much trouble many people have just coming to grips with homosexuality, or other differing orientations. Now take a step back and reflect that homosexuals, polysexuals, bisexuals, transfolk etc.. are much more easily related to than a person who professes to have zero sexual interest. To most people, that sort of statement is rather alien to the human experience as defined by the overwhelming majority of the population. Even bizarre fetishists are more easily understood then someone who identifies as asexual.
Now my point is not that* true* asexuality does not exist, but that it is rare; and thus when someone chooses to discuss this with us, a position of healthy but respectful skepticism is in order. Occam’s razor would tell us that it is far more likely that they all somewhere forward of the zero mark, and there are other factors at play. It doesn’t help that every “asexual” I’ve ever encountered in person has been the type that is going through a phase, or appears to be using it as a shield to justify their lack of motivation to perform some serious personal critique and change. Using the label in that manner does a disservice to those who truly are happy and content with their lives and have no desire to ever interact with another human being sexually. Conflating it with a political message and “lifestyle” only makes people roll their eyes harder and reenforces doubt. How tempting would it be to a teen who is mildly depressed to take solace supposed asexuality to explain their lack of desire or failures with their initial attempts at romance?
The point is not that asexuality is not a valid orientation or that it doesn’t occur. It is and it does, I’m certain. The issue I’m merely trying to convey is that the creation of a welcoming subculture around the term that accepts and reenforces aberrant, anti-social behaviour and justifies and enables those unwilling to change is not healthy. Not all of them need to change of course, it is a personal choice, and one that should be respected. It seems though that most of those who are content do not participate in any meaningful way in that same subculture, and many may not even be aware it exists. Thus if that statement is reflective of the reality, even in a light manner, the skepticism that many people express is more than a little warranted.
For someone who doesn’t have a dog in this fight, you sure are using a lot of insulting terms, Acid Lamp.
If it helps you feel better, consider this: Would you really WANT someone who identifies as asexual only to mask immaturity/insecurity/uncertainty/ineptness to put their genes in the gene pool?
If someone is unabashedly “aberrant” and “anti-social”, then it’s a good thing they want to keep to themselves and not bother the normal, healthy, sane people.
Why? Why on earth is it necessary to express skepticism about what other people say about their own sexual desires, or lack thereof? What could possibly be gained by doing this? I very much doubt that anyone is going to react to such skepticism by going like this :smack: and saying “Gosh, I’ve been totally wrong about my own sexual desires all this time. Thank goodness you were able to set me straight by expressing skepticism as to the accuracy of my statements about my own inner feelings!”
Occam’s razor tells us no such thing, unless you don’t believe that asexuality exists at all – and you just said you weren’t making that claim.
I would be curious to know exactly how many self-described asexual individuals you have encountered in person. Both you and the OP have made vague claims about the self-described asexuals you are acquainted with, but while I realize it’s usually impossible to provide cites for one’s acquaintances I do not find these unsupported generalizations to be particularly compelling in a debate.
While I can easily believe that people experiencing a temporary loss of libido may be confused as to whether they are actually asexual, I have seen zero evidence that there’s any significant number of people claiming to be asexual to gain pity or as an excuse for their failures. Frankly it does not seem very likely to me. If a person who’d struck out at sex again and again wanted to make this failure sound like a virtue, it seems to me the obvious way to go would be to claim to be celibate for religious/spiritual reasons. There are plenty of people who’d actually be impressed by that.
ORLY.
First of all, I don’t compare lack of sex drive to being gay or transgendered. Sexual orientation is not the same as libido; there are people of all orientations who want to fuck like bunnies as often as they can, and others who are happy enough with sex every couple weeks or so. I’m straight even though I don’t want to do more to a good-looking guy than ogle him, so the whole (undeserved) stigma attached to the non-heteronormative does not apply in my case.
Honestly, people find it odder that I don’t ever listen to music or that I don’t like seafood of any sort than they do that I never talk about dates or a husband or whatever. Most people I know, straight and gay, don’t talk about their sex lives much either. They mention their spouse or SO but not how many times they get jiggy a night and the mechanics thereof.
I fail to see how it makes me hard to relate to. I prefer not to hear about people’s sex lives (not interested and TMI) so unfortunately that limits our topics of conversation to food, football, beer, gardening, knitting, tropical fish, travel, families, work, annoying neighbors, books, TV shows, pets, health, politics, the weather, current events, cooking, and the annoying people across the room.
Now if I meet someone and the first thing out of their mouth is “I like to wear a onesie and poop my diaper while my partner dresses up as Mary Poppins and smears it on me while telling me I’m a naughty baby” I am going to get away from that person in a fat jiffy, even though by your earlier statement this person with an out-there fetish is more believable than 35 year old virgin and happy that way me.
Yeah, just like the old “everyone’s a little bit bisexual” argument brings out people who will insist they are straight and completely unattracted to their own sex, and likewise gay people who will insist they are completely unattracted to the opposite sex. We can be skeptical and assume most of them are fibbing, too.
That part I’ll agree with.
Unfortunately, the kid who wails online about “i cudnt get it up i was sooo nrvus cudnt do it ZOMG im must b asexual!11111111111” means the kid who genuinely has no interest in going on dates and would much rather stay home doing whatever is going to be tarred with the same brush and face the same skepticism and disbelief.
Well, yeah, since one’s sitting here typing at you, though I don’t agree it’s an orientation.
I don’t like it, but it’s hardly the scourge that will end civilization as we know it. It’s bad because people who are burned out on sex because of reasons that can possibly be helped (abuse victims, gays afraid to come out, endocrine gland problems) won’t be encouraged to get the counselling or medical care they need.
Which was pretty much my entire point in this thread. Glad we agree. Everything else is speculation on my part, and I’ve said as much several times over. No need to get upset, it’s not as if i’ve got my Spanish inquisition robe on or something. Like you mentioned, normally people don’t discuss their sexual proclivities with strangers, and thus the conversation is limited more to friends or family members. People who you’ve got more context to work with. I don’t ask, but if someone volunteers I’ll discuss it.
Aven and the wiki think otherwise, though obviously this is subjective. I don’t think that Orientation is the correct word either, but only leaves us with clinical terms that a few people in this thread seem to find insulting.
Again, we agree.
Look, I understand that it’s tempting to want to spare people’s feelings in the name of acceptance, tolerance and political correctness. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I don’t think that sugar coating something is the way to have an honest discussion about it. Asexuality’s opposite, Hypersexuality (and best comparison), is listed as a disorder in the WHO’s Internal classification of diseases. Even if we do not consider asexuality a disorder, it does not fall into the range of normal sexual function. That doesn’t mean that normal is equivalent to good. If a person is happy and content, then there is nothing to address. If a person is otherwise affected though, is not our duty to them as a friend or family member to help them consider that what they are experience might be symptom of another problem rather than an innate condition separate from everything else?
If you think a person has a mental illness or condition as laid out in the DSM-IV–such as depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, OCD, adjustment disorder, pervasive developmental disorder, schizophrenia, or a personality disorder–then yes, I think you should encourage a loved one to get help.
But in the absence of obvious problems, family and friends need to butt out.
I would hate for my family members to hold some kind of intervention just because I have no interest in dating. If they want to tell me they are worried because I’m showing signs of depression, as indicated by mood and activity level, that’s one thing. But for anyone to take it upon themselves to make an issue of my sexuality or lack thereof? Unless I bring it up first and I keep harping about it mournfully, it is no one’s business.
And this relates to the catch-22 I pointed out earlier. If a person lets the people around them know they are asexual, they are supposedly making a big deal of their weirdness–trying to earn undeserved sympathy, trying to make themselves special, and/or trying to be cool. If a person doesn’t say anything about their lack of sexuality and just lives their lives quietly, then supposedly that gives friends and family the “duty” to pry and figure out what’s wrong with them. And if they say “Leave me alone. I’m just asexual!” that gives the concerned license to preach to them…because more than likely they’re just confused. Or trying to earn undeserved sympathy. Or trying to be cool.
If a person is happy and asexual, then that means they are twisted and embracing their “anti-sociality” (the word is asocial, by the way) If they are sad and asexual, then that means they need help. Do you see how your arguments can be perceived as illogical?
There are plenty of depressed gay people out there. They don’t want to be gay, perhaps, or they’ve been abused because they are gay. Or maybe the gayness is completely independent of their depression. Whatever the explanation, I wouldn’t make a big deal out of a person’s gayness if I were concerned about their mental health. I’d say, “Dude, you need help because you’re depressed.” Not, “Bro, you’re depressed because you need a girl.”
Maybe Depressed Gay person is actually confused about his sexuality. Maybe he isn’t gay, but he thinks he is because he was abused as a kid. Who knows? That’s the kind of stuff a person discovers on his own, perhaps with the help of a licensed therapist. Maybe just by living life and experiencing new things, just like everyone else does.
I was told to get help from well-intentioned people. I eventually did seek treatment because I felt very ashamed and embarrassed. And I was given a bunch of diagnoses. But alas, no cure for me. So what’s left but to make the best of it and not care what people think? And to try to embrace all of me–both my weaknesses and strengths? Why shouldn’t I say to someone, “Yes, I have no interest in dating or being romantically involved, but I’m not worried about it and neither should you”? What’s wrong with telling someone, “You do not have to have sex to be happy and fulfilled, so please don’t feel discouraged.” There is no statement truer than this. There is nothing shameful about not being “normal”.
I’m sick of talking about this, so I’m giving up.
Probably because you haven’t read for comprehension. Your interpretation of what I’ve been saying isn’t accurate at all. What I actually said was:
asexuality exists, and is not simply a made up thing.
asexuality has a strong, but not exclusive, correlation with asocial (thanks, that was the word I was looking for) behaviour.
my personal, physical interactions with self described asexuals have all also been a narrow sort of asocials.
I suspect that 3 holds true for many other people and thus colors their perception of asexuals and asexuality *Because… *
A. The term asexuality/asexual is currently ill defined and overly broad.
b. Those most vocal about it tend to be asocial, and associate themselves heavily in other counterculture interests.
c. Regular everyday people who are simply asexual and not asocial may not be aware there is even a movement or do not participate in it. They also tend not to talk about the issue because it simply never comes up in conversation for them.
d. Because of the above, there is general skepticism of the concept as whole.
All of which leads me to the conclusion of:
Someone can be asexual and not asocial. If they are happy then good for them.
*If not[/I], then their asexuality might be a symptom of a hormonal problem or other physiological issue. It would be prudent for someone providing advice to encourage them to have a check-up or see a therapist before simply writing off sexuality as a whole.
Someone can be both Asocial and asexual and content. If so, then good for them.
*If not[/I], then their asexuality might be symptom of a physical or emotional problem they ought to rule out or seek help for. It would be prudent for someone providing advice to encourage them to have a check-up or see a therapist before simply writing off sexuality as a whole.
Now if there is something unreasonable in what I posted, I don’t see it at all. The only objection that I’ve seen repeated in this thread amounts to little more then “what’s it to you?” or “what business it it of yours?” The honest answer is of course: “nothing” and “none”, But we are having a discussion on a board where the OP asked the question so I’m giving my perspective. If someone asks me in real life I’ll do the same. I don’t go around prying into people’s lives, nor do I decline to answer when asked merely to spare the tender feelings of someone.