Talk Elections

At its most basic, asexuality is defined by an absence of sexual attraction. Some asexual people are in romantic relationships, others aren't. Some are outgoing, others are shy. Some are sexually active for the sake of their partners or social pressure, some have never so much as kissed another person. Some think sex is disgusting, some are indifferent, and some think it's great for other people but have no wish to "go there" themselves.

But what all asexual people have in common -- and what defines asexuality as an orientation -- is that, while they may have a desire to connect with other people, asexuals have no desire to connect with them sexually. Asexual people are not the same as celibate people: it's not that they are purposefully or unintentionally abstaining from sex they would otherwise like to have, but rather that they have no interest in it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/life-without-sex-the-third-phase-of-the-asexuality-movement/254880/

And more:

"in order to become a point of identification, not being interested in sex had to first be considered a problem -- or at the very least something worth commenting on. Asexuality exists as we know it in part because of the assumption that, unless otherwise stated, everyone is either having regular, passionate sex or seeking it out. It also exists because of the assumption that, if you're not doing that, there is something medically or psychologically wrong with you."

I think I'm limited to three paragraphs, but the entire article is quite good.

I met someone who claimed to be asexual... it's kind of strange, because until you're around someone who really doesn't think about sex at all, you don't realise how much you actually do.

Mental illness?

Do they really mean asexual or do they mean autosexual?

Clearly.

Asexual is not a mental illness, and the very fact that you would go there is emblematic of the way asexuals are excluded, rendered invisible, and otherwise marginalized by sexuals.


http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/30870-asexual-vs-autosexual/

There are multiple ways in which the term 'autosexual' can be used: as an orientation and as a behavior. As an orientation, it refers to someone who only desires themselves. As a behavior, it refers to someone who masturbates but does not have sex. Those who orient autosexual also technically orient asexual, because they do not desire to have sex. Meanwhile those who behave autosexual may be asexual, or they may be sexual.

I agree with both the above statements.

I've never met an asexual. Is it true they don't think about sex AT ALL? How is that possible? What else is there to think about?

I would think most asexuals think about sex simply because we are forced to; it is impossible to live in modern society and not think about sex. To many asexuals, sexual desire is like an invisible elephant that suddenly appeared at puberty, when everyone around us started talking about it and living as if it were very important, and we know we are supposed to see it, but it remains invisible to us. We are familiar with it as a second-hand notion that is deemed very important but which we are excluded from. Asexuality doesn't preclude desire for a partner, desire for romance, autosexuality (as pointed out above), or other forms of arousal not involving desire for sex.

Perhaps in some people that cylinder never fires. I don't see what the big deal is.

No, I didn't exclude them.  Sick people are very much 'with us', and can be quite visible as long as they're ambulatory or functional - in point of fact when they go on killing sprees they become quite the center of attention. 

True, they're 'on the margin', but after all, isn't it true that the vast majority of people have a working gonad and a brain connected to it?

Why would that entail sickness on the part of the minority? It's an entirely benign sickness at worse, and hence not in the conventional sense a sickness at all.

Do you consider homosexuals to be mentally ill as well?  Both are sexual minorities who deviate from the "mainstream".  What's the difference?

Benign? A life without sexual compulsions is missing a very necessary ingredient that drives intimate relationships. Legitimate asexuality presumably has pretty negative psychological consequences that cause you to be on the margins of society and never reaching full self-actualization.

I couldn't imagine living without a sexual drive. Maybe in some ways it could be beneficial but it's too foreign a concept for me and it's at the center of the human experience.

There's a big difference between having a different sexual preference and not having one at all.

What about procreating, raising children, etc?

Just because you can't imagine a lifestyle doesn't make it justified to condemn it.

Nope.


Again, from experience, nope.

And, as for me--

That's fair but I see there being significant difficulties finding a partner who simply wants to raise children and has only a romantic interest. I see that being tough to overcome.

That's fair. I wasn't trying to condemn it so much as I wanted to say that asexuality seems detrimental psychologically as long as society isn't understanding of it. I'd say the same of homosexuality.

@Nathan - Could you explain why so that I can further understand asexuality?

Why what? I developed 'normally' (read: normatively) until I was about fifteen, at which point some switch or something got thrown and I lost progressively the desire to actually have sex with anybody and then most sexual attraction (it's only active sexual desire that I completely lack, my level of sexual attraction is just very low). There really isn't a 'why' for it, although I am in some ways happy about it since religious ecstasies and creative ability kind of fill in for most of that instinctual field, and 'sitting outside my friends' and acquaintances' love/sex tesseract watching and eating popcorn' for most of the social aspects*.


*this actually isn't due to the asexuality, it's due to celibacy, which is a separate issue for me with much more to do with a specific unrelated event in my life where I lost somebody I really loved.

Well yes; it's not any more detrimental than that experienced by any small sexual minority, or for that matter anyone whose partner preferences exclude a large majority of people-- which is, actually far more common than we realize. If a person's partner preferences were somehow wrong or made them incomplete simply because it reduced their chances of finding a mate, then practically all partner preferences, including the most common mainstream ones (thin, large-chested girls; tall, well-built men) are detrimental. It's more a matter of degree than a bright line. Of course, having visible communities where like-minded people can come together can make a real difference.

No buddy, a hole is a hole.  Its even just the right size and shape!

In that case what, precisely, is 'wrong' with a specific deviation involving not caring about holes? Put another way, what makes interest in holes of such value to you?

I think you misunderstand me. I meant that many people would view things like raising children  as being at the centre of the human experience. Yet, a fair share don't want to or can't. And of course gay people are precluded from doing so, at least in the standard way. Yet, few would say that all such people are psychologically damaged.

I'll admit that I don't get asexuality. At the same time, I don't really care how people live their lives.

To turn the nail on its head, do you also approve of anorexia?  Tis the same sort of disorder, pal.

They may have hormone deficiencies, which is quite treatable these days (hormones are your friends!). If they have a sex drive, but for philosophical reasons chose to remain celibate, that is another matter.

How? You need to eat for your body to continue functioning.


I don't really have the time to get into the difference here (sorry Torie, I would otherwise!--but I'm traveling today), but I assure you that in the case of 'asexuality-as-orientation' as is being discussed it's usually not a question of hormones, at least, no more so than any other orientation.

I don't see what's wrong with calling asexuality a mental illness.  If you take away the stigma of the term "mental illness," that's exactly what it is, same with homosexuality.  It's a lack of a normal human trait beyond that persons control. Otherwise, it's just celibacy. 

Absolutely. But don't be hating. They're not hurting anybody. It's probably the most benign mental illness of them all.

Except no one calls homosexuality a mental illness. In fact, homosexuality was explicitly removed from the list of mental illnesses and is no longer considered one. If an uncommon trait beyond a person's control were all that were required, then Einstein would also be mentally ill, because he was a genius. But even if asexuality were voluntary, it wouldn't necessarily be the same as celibacy. Priests are not voluntarily asexuals; they still experience sexual desire, only they control it through their vows. It is not their desire that matters, but the will of God. Also, not all asexuals are celibate. Some do engage in sex for social reasons.

How do they get *cough* erect in the case of men or naturally lubricated in the case of women *cough* if there is no sexual desire?

Somebody had to ask...

The narrow-mindness and bigotry of some people in this thread is quite disappionting

I imagine they limit themselves to non-penetrative oral sex or have some other way of getting themselves aroused. I'm a virgin myself, so I would not know.

I understand.  I don't want to sound like a bigot on this issue because I'm not.   I'm simply stating by saying asexuality or homosexuality, or better yet transsexuality, isn't a neurological condition (and likely caused by a genetic mutation of some sort), you're basically saying it's a choice.   It's not.  It's a biological error beyond a person's control.

I'm not saying it's a choice. Neither do I consider it a psychiatric disorder, or illness, because that implies something that needs to be fixed. The problem is that homosexuals and asexuals aren't saying that something needs to be fixed. Transsexuals feel that something needs to be fixed, but what needs to be fixed is not the neurological condition which makes them transsexual, but the biological presentation that conflicts with the neurological condition. In none of the three cases, are the preferences an "error".

I would say "biologically undesirable" rather than "a biological error." Of course a condition that is incompatible with human reproduction is a biologically undesirable trait whether it's being born as infertile, homosexual, asexual, etc. That does not make it a "bad" thing, of course, but let's not beat around the bush: It's no more desirable from a biological standpoint than being stupid or ugly. It's not fair, but that's life.

Biology doesn't desire things, it just is. Only animals desire things. Humans desire things. Most humans don't desire to be stupid or ugly, even those that are stupid or ugly. But humans that are asexual or homosexual don't desire to be not asexual or homosexual, most of us are fine with being asexual or homosexual. It is acceptance by society that concerns us.

But you probably meant that I won't have children; that's true, I won't. But that is not because of my asexuality, it's because I don't want children.


Unfortunately, people tend to do that when confronted with a new concept. Some of them never stop doing it. But hopefully, some of them do after the initial shock of unfamiliarity and ignorance wears off. They make the jump to acceptance and perhaps even some understanding. That's part of the reason why I felt a thread like this would be needed.

I am not disagreeing with you, but it's self-evident that the ability to reproduce (along with the desire) is a biologically favorable characteristic. Otherwise, our species would eventually go extinct. I am surprised that anybody would dispute these facts.


A futile concern, if you ask me. After all, there is really no such thing as "society." The world is just individuals pursuing their own separate self-interests. No living person in the history of mankind has ever been known, let alone "accepted," by every living individual at any particular point in time. In Atlasian terms, even the most popular presidents only won 60 or so percentage points among voters. Life is not fair. People are biased and prejudiced. But it's no big deal. Myself, I find asexuality different, to put it mildly, but completely harmless and certainly not worthy of being looked down upon (sexually deviant behavior that spreads disease IS harmful and worthy of being frowned upon, so kudos to asexuals for not contributing to that). My obsession with being clean is probably more harmful to others than if I were asexual. With that said, if I ever became concerned with everybody accepting my abnormal obsession with cleanliness, if I ever started to believe that it would one day be accepted as normal, I would hope somebody would snap me out of it. It's not normal and never will be. That's OK, though. I accept that. Thinking about things differently would be quite an unproductive and frustrating endeavor, I would imagine...

No, because the ability and desire to reproduce at a species level can't be evaluated at the individual level. At the individual level, no one has the ability to perpetuate themselves forever; we all die. It isn't a crime, a shame, or in any way inherently unfavorable for an individual organism not to have children. What you're talking about is the species level. However, at the species level, I would just like to point out that with the human population at approximately 7 billion, now is not a very good time to be worrying about going extinct. Humanity will not go extinct over asexuality. Put your fears to rest.


I find nothing particularly abnormal about an obsession with cleanliness. My roommate in college in sophomore year was obsessed with cleanliness, and no one called him biologically unfavorable, in error, or missing out on some critical ingredient on life. He was accepted. He was not, universally liked. His habit was not called "abnormal," which is problematic largely because of its pejorative connotations. It certainly was not called an illness, which has pejorative connotations because illness is something that people need to overcome. It does not mean that every bad person out there is ill, or that mental illness is to be synoymous with every behavior that you find strange or unlikable.

By "acceptance", all I ask is to be able to talk about being asexual without so many inaccurate assertions such as being in "biological error", or "biologically undesirable" or having "mental illness" or "hormone deficiencies" or unable to achieve intimacy, being compared to being ugly or stupid, or even threatening to the survival of the species [!]. It's amazing how many negative characterizations fly out one after another. These assertions are simply untrue, and what's more the terms being bandied about here are poorly defined. But taking them at their most reasonable definition they are untrue.

Don't know about men, but women easily get lubricated without feeling particularly horny.  Many women, for example, become lubricated as a result of watching pornography in spite of not reporting a strong desire for sex.

It's possible to become erect with very limited desire and it's actually possible for asexual people to have fetishes, as paradoxical as that may sound. It just feels somewhat, uh, off, at least in my case.

Arousal does not always necessarily come from sexual desire.  Actually, I don't know how you could live this long as a guy and not notice that.  :P

Since you don't know I'd like to take this opportunity to inform you that men do not become easily lubricated without sexual desire.

Anyway, I'd like to point that there are evolutionary theories saying that for a species like humans working in a group it CAN, theoretically, be beneficial for the group's survival to have individual members who devote their time to group-beneficial activities rather than caring for their own children.

Essentially, that was the reason why celibacy has been encouraged in certain contexts throughout history.

Celibacy does not equal asexuality and vice versa.

One can have sexual desires and, for some reason, live in celibacy, while asexual can have sex for other reasons.

I don't think it is helpful to define mental illness as only involving that which causes the body to cease functioning.  You might stand all day in the highway median screaming at traffic with magic marker eyebrows and a toilet seat round your neck and after all this would not cause the body to cease functioning.

You explicitly compared it to anorexia, which doesn't work at all. I'm baffled as to how a sexual orientation can be a mental illness, unless you're one of those assholes.

"Cause the body to cease functioning" seems like the wrong formulation. Rather, I'd use something like "being able to live in society"

Someone who stands all day screaming at traffic, etc would not be able to provide for themselves and would be apprehended by the authorities for disorderly behaviour. So it's not a lifestyle which is sustainable, just like being anorectic. Being asexual is though.