A Life Without Sex: The Third Phase of the Asexuality Movement

[Torie]

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.

[asexual trans victimologist]

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

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

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

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.

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.

[King]

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. 

[Politico]

Mental illness?

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

[Beet]

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. 

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.

[Politico]

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...

[Swedish Cheese]

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

[Beet]

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?

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.

[King]

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. 

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.

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.

[Beet]

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. 

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.

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".

[Politico]

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.

[Beet]

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.

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

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.

[Politico]

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.

 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.

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.

It is acceptance by society that concerns us.

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...

[Beet]

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.

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.

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...

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.

[Thanks for all the fish!]

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...

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.

[asexual trans victimologist]

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...

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.

[The Mikado]

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...

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. 

[Gustaf]

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...

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.

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.

[Senator Kalwejt]

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.

[opebo]

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

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

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.

[asexual trans victimologist]

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

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

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.

[Gustaf]

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

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

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.

"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.