I Want to Understand the Struggles of Asexuals

[Eclipse Dragon]

Aside from that however, asexuality is not well known outside the internet so people don't really have the opportunity to discriminate in the more traditional ways. That being said, it's extremely common for people to outright refuse to date asexuals on that basis alone and this fact is not something that can be easily hidden when an asexual decides to date (the subject of sex inevitably will come up, there's no avoiding it).

The rest I see the problem with easily, but I'm not sure what the problem is with that? If one person wants sex in a relationship and the other does not I think it would be a fairly reasonable basis for a relationship not to occur?

I didn't mean to imply that these people were wrong in refusing to date an asexual because sex is something they want/need in their relationships, only that it presents an issue in dating. This issue could easily be fixed of course by dating another asexual, but the chances of that are rather slim. More common is that asexuals date in their romantic orientation and have sex to please their partner, which can lead to it's own host of issues (or not, depends on the partner).

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Aside from that however, asexuality is not well known outside the internet so people don't really have the opportunity to discriminate in the more traditional ways. That being said, it's extremely common for people to outright refuse to date asexuals on that basis alone and this fact is not something that can be easily hidden when an asexual decides to date (the subject of sex inevitably will come up, there's no avoiding it).

The rest I see the problem with easily, but I'm not sure what the problem is with that? If one person wants sex in a relationship and the other does not I think it would be a fairly reasonable basis for a relationship not to occur?

I didn't mean to imply that these people were wrong in refusing to date an asexual because sex is something they want/need in their relationships, only that it presents an issue in dating. This issue could easily be fixed of course by dating another asexual, but the chances of that are rather slim. More common is that asexuals date in their romantic orientation and have sex to please their partner, which can lead to it's own host of issues (or not, depends on the partner).

Ah fair enough, it would be an issue that people would face.

 

[1981]

Like... really? Not wanting sex makes someone "broken'? I rather think they aren't and to say it does is the result of the breakdown of reason. It suggests we are supposed to have sex, which is utter foolishness as it suggests some kind of outside purpose.

Well, we sorta are. Procreation ensures the survival of the species. It's a function we are meant to have, like the ability to walk. But missing that bit isn't grounds for ridicule. (Well, duh!)

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Like... really? Not wanting sex makes someone "broken'? I rather think they aren't and to say it does is the result of the breakdown of reason. It suggests we are supposed to have sex, which is utter foolishness as it suggests some kind of outside purpose.

Well, we sorta are. Procreation ensures the survival of the species. It's a function we are meant to have, like the ability to walk. But missing that bit isn't grounds for ridicule. (Well, duh!)

For one thing we aren't 'meant' to have it. That implies intent. Unless you're gonna start preaching religion at me there's nothing there to intend us to have it. Nature doesn't mean for anything to happen nor intend it. It just happens without any judgement.

Secondly, while you can say if someone couldn't procreate then they are lacking an ability like walking, that's different from being able to but not doing so. Barring some condition asexuals can procreate the same as non-asexuals.

 

[Dizchu]

Well, we sorta are. Procreation ensures the survival of the species. It's a function we are meant to have, like the ability to walk. But missing that bit isn't grounds for ridicule. (Well, duh!)

Procreation isn't the only thing necessary for a species' survival though. There are a lot of organisms that do nothing but reproduce, humans have very few offspring in comparison. Not only that but humans have developed contraception to be able to reap the benefits of sex without having to deal with unwanted consequences like STDs and pregnancy.

I mean using the same reasoning, being gay is "unnatural". Who knows, there might be an evolutionary advantage to having gay and asexual people in a community (let's not forget that humans are social animals and societies evolve as much as individual organisms do).

 

[cleric of the order]

There seems to be a hind premise in this.
One I can't seem to work out.
Either way
I have to approve this logically and ask this question
how in high heaven does someone face discrimination for A sexuality.
Now the rest of the lGBT community follows a possibility for these sorts of things as they have their own cultures, clear sexual orientations that fall under scrutiny of the culture at large.
But Asexual has no, (to my understand coagulation) based a limited selection of of orientation.

The latter shouldn't have need for a group consciousnesses as far as I know.
As summarized by an old Asexual friend of mine, it boils down to not having an interest in reproduction. Mind you he was autistic (and lower functioning then me) so that might have played a role in lack of group identity.
And quite plainly on can quite contently without any problems directed towards an absence of sex drive (to my knowledge).

 

[cleric of the order]

Well, we sorta are. Procreation ensures the survival of the species. It's a function we are meant to have, like the ability to walk. But missing that bit isn't grounds for ridicule. (Well, duh!)

Procreation isn't the only thing necessary for a species' survival though. There are a lot of organisms that do nothing but reproduce, humans have very few offspring in comparison. Not only that but humans have developed contraception to be able to reap the benefits of sex without having to deal with unwanted consequences like STDs and pregnancy.

I mean using the same reasoning, being gay is "unnatural". Who knows, there might be an evolutionary advantage to having gay and asexual people in a community (let's not forget that humans are social animals and societies evolve as much as individual organisms do).

actually I've had people argue that since gay seems to be about 10% that it's a natural population stabilizer, ensuring that you have a dead drop of about 10 if the males. but they weren't all that bright.
but it still doesn't stop sex from being definitively necessary for reproduction, and reproduction being necessary for the continuation of the species

 

[Zontar]

actually I've had people argue that since gay seems to be about 10% that it's a natural population stabilizer, ensuring that you have a dead drop of about 10 if the males. but they weren't all that bright.
but it still doesn't stop sex from being definitively necessary for reproduction, and reproduction being necessary for the continuation of the species

10% is the upper estimates of how much of wider society is gay, with some estimates being as low as 2% and most being in the 4-6% range. Which is still a fair deal larger then the "less then 1%" trans and intersex people have.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

actually I've had people argue that since gay seems to be about 10% that it's a natural population stabilizer, ensuring that you have a dead drop of about 10 if the males. but they weren't all that bright.
but it still doesn't stop sex from being definitively necessary for reproduction, and reproduction being necessary for the continuation of the species

10% is the upper estimates of how much of wider society is gay, with some estimates being as low as 2% and most being in the 4-6% range. Which is still a fair deal larger then the "less then 1%" trans and intersex people have.

I have issues with the "less than 1%" statistic, because the statistic is pretty hard to pin down amongst a group that will actively lie due to being "stealth", or still in the closet. Also there are issues with what people will count as trans, like groups who insist that not wanting sexual reassignment surgery disqualifies one from being trans. With poor adherence to definitions in this regard, along with a large section of trans people who actively lie to protective themselves. It's not a stretch to think the top statistic of 1.7% might be in the conservative range of estimates.

Intersex on the other hand is a rare biological defect, also it's not interchangeable with transgenderism. Trans intersex folk tend more often than not to have had "corrective surgery" early in life, before they could express any gender identity of their own. So while there is some cross over the two are not the same.

 

[Zontar]

It's not a stretch to think the top statistic of 1.7% might be in the conservative range of estimates.

I have my doubts about that just for evolutionary reasons. There's nothing morally wrong with being trans or one of the other groups which may or may not exist (the next real pansexual I see will be the first) but from a survival standpoint it seems the type of thing which would be excluded from the gene pool. With how much less likely trans people are to have kids, and the fact that something like 40% or 50% try to commit suicide before 20 and do commit suicide before 30, and that those which do have kids are much more likely to adopt then to have their own offspring, I think it's safe to say the number is marginal given the overall minuscule rate of birth (that led to successful offspring) humans had before the industrial revolutions. 3% would be shockingly high in my mind, though 2% could be the case. In any event it's pointless to speculate on those who aren't saying since it's impossible to get more then an estimated range, and even those end up odd sometimes such as the estimate that gays make up 2-10% of the population depending on the source.

 

[Lightknight]

actually I've had people argue that since gay seems to be about 10% that it's a natural population stabilizer, ensuring that you have a dead drop of about 10 if the males. but they weren't all that bright.
but it still doesn't stop sex from being definitively necessary for reproduction, and reproduction being necessary for the continuation of the species

10% is the upper estimates of how much of wider society is gay, with some estimates being as low as 2% and most being in the 4-6% range. Which is still a fair deal larger then the "less then 1%" trans and intersex people have.

I have issues with the "less than 1%" statistic, because the statistic is pretty hard to pin down amongst a group that will actively lie due to being "stealth", or still in the closet. Also there are issues with what people will count as trans, like groups who insist that not wanting sexual reassignment surgery disqualifies one from being trans. With poor adherence to definitions in this regard, along with a large section of trans people who actively lie to protective themselves. It's not a stretch to think the top statistic of 1.7% might be in the conservative range of estimates.

Intersex on the other hand is a rare biological defect, also it's not interchangeable with transgenderism. Trans intersex folk tend more often than not to have had "corrective surgery" early in life, before they could express any gender identity of their own. So while there is some cross over the two are not the same.

The problem with this line of thinking is that unless you can establish evidence for your claim you also can't discredit those findings. I mean, the other orientations and transsexuality still manage to get over 4% representation and they sure as hell have a higher likelihood of persecution for those identifications. I think, given this, it is a fairly safe conclusion that they are a lot rarer than the other groups unless we find other significant barriers to it than what other orientations/identities provide. Asexuality really isn't so ostracized in today's society. It's mostly shrugged off or misunderstood rather than "hated" or "persecuted". People get all kinds of pissy when you love someone they think you shouldn't love. But when you don't love then it doesn't trigger the hate response. Only when the romantic engagements of an Asexual individual overlap with that of a homosexual individual does active social endangerment really seem to be a risk.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I've only had one asexual friend and have not personally known any others so it's possible that I'm just not inside the culture enough to know some movement against them that my buddy never expressed. Just general angst over being told that this was just a phase and they'll eventually find the right one. One asexual poster here also expressed some interesting information on the romantic types of asexuals that was really interesting and she also mentioned her parent's "going through a phase" mentality as disheartening. Oh, and she didn't like having to wear the more ridiculous female clothing to formal events.

But I've heard of and seen terrible persecution of gays and transpeople that I simply haven't seen in the asexual camp.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

Like... really? Not wanting sex makes someone "broken'? I rather think they aren't and to say it does is the result of the breakdown of reason. It suggests we are supposed to have sex, which is utter foolishness as it suggests some kind of outside purpose.

Well, we sorta are. Procreation ensures the survival of the species. It's a function we are meant to have, like the ability to walk. But missing that bit isn't grounds for ridicule. (Well, duh!)

For one thing we aren't 'meant' to have it. That implies intent. Unless you're gonna start preaching religion at me there's nothing there to intend us to have it. Nature doesn't mean for anything to happen nor intend it. It just happens without any judgement.

Secondly, while you can say if someone couldn't procreate then they are lacking an ability like walking, that's different from being able to but not doing so. Barring some condition asexuals can procreate the same as non-asexuals.

Uh, would like to step in here and say that it's actually evolution that states that, not religion. Like, sex to ensure the passing down of your genes to your children so that the species continues and doesn't die off is one of the core principles of evolution. It's why we have sex drives, why every single animal does and why animals that don't (silly panda bears) have a normal sex drive either die off or find it incredibly hard to gain their numbers back.

Understandably, every single human these days doesn't exactly need to have children and such. Some places need more kids, some places need less, so on. But it remains that actually having the urges to procreate is a rather vital concept of like, every organism. Surprisingly, unless humans suddenly stopped existing in the same form as other evolved animals, we are "meant" to have it.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Like... really? Not wanting sex makes someone "broken'? I rather think they aren't and to say it does is the result of the breakdown of reason. It suggests we are supposed to have sex, which is utter foolishness as it suggests some kind of outside purpose.

Well, we sorta are. Procreation ensures the survival of the species. It's a function we are meant to have, like the ability to walk. But missing that bit isn't grounds for ridicule. (Well, duh!)

For one thing we aren't 'meant' to have it. That implies intent. Unless you're gonna start preaching religion at me there's nothing there to intend us to have it. Nature doesn't mean for anything to happen nor intend it. It just happens without any judgement.

Secondly, while you can say if someone couldn't procreate then they are lacking an ability like walking, that's different from being able to but not doing so. Barring some condition asexuals can procreate the same as non-asexuals.

Uh, would like to step in here and say that it's actually evolution that states that, not religion. Like, sex to ensure the passing down of your genes to your children so that the species continues and doesn't die off is one of the core principles of evolution. It's why we have sex drives, why every single animal does and why animals that don't (silly panda bears) have a normal sex drive either die off or find it incredibly hard to gain their numbers back.

Understandably, every single human these days doesn't exactly need to have children and such. Some places need more kids, some places need less, so on. But it remains that actually having the urges to procreate is a rather vital concept of like, every organism. Surprisingly, unless humans suddenly stopped existing in the same form as other evolved animals, we are "meant" to have it.

If you're going to talk about science please don't drag bad philosophy into this.

Evolution is a description of things that happen. It is a phenomenon. It does NOT say what is meant to be. Sorry but thunder isn't the sky getting angry and evolution doesn't have any intent.

And please, core principles? Core principle for how it functions is not the same as a core principle in regards to what *should* be.

This is like saying rockets go against nature because gravity says small things are attracted to larger things. So please stop injecting your own personal ideas and thoughts, this absurd idea of 'meant to be' into a description of what *is* and NOT what should be.

 

[Dizchu]

I have to say I'm quite saddened that the discussion has become about the legitimacy of asexuality. Asexuals exist, they're not "abnormal" they're just uncommon. Nothing is "wrong" with them because they won't "pass on their genes".

Maybe I've answered my own question with this thread.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's not a stretch to think the top statistic of 1.7% might be in the conservative range of estimates.

I have my doubts about that just for evolutionary reasons. There's nothing morally wrong with being trans or one of the other groups which may or may not exist (the next real pansexual I see will be the first) but from a survival standpoint it seems the type of thing which would be excluded from the gene pool. With how much less likely trans people are to have kids, and the fact that something like 40% or 50% try to commit suicide before 20 and do commit suicide before 30, and that those which do have kids are much more likely to adopt then to have their own offspring, I think it's safe to say the number is marginal given the overall minuscule rate of birth (that led to successful offspring) humans had before the industrial revolutions. 3% would be shockingly high in my mind, though 2% could be the case. In any event it's pointless to speculate on those who aren't saying since it's impossible to get more then an estimated range, and even those end up odd sometimes such as the estimate that gays make up 2-10% of the population depending on the source.

You're talking about problems trans people have in our current society, though, no reason that would make them necessarily selected against in general.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I have my doubts about that just for evolutionary reasons. There's nothing morally wrong with being trans or one of the other groups which may or may not exist (the next real pansexual I see will be the first) but from a survival standpoint it seems the type of thing which would be excluded from the gene pool. With how much less likely trans people are to have kids, and the fact that something like 40% or 50% try to commit suicide before 20 and do commit suicide before 30, and that those which do have kids are much more likely to adopt then to have their own offspring, I think it's safe to say the number is marginal given the overall minuscule rate of birth (that led to successful offspring) humans had before the industrial revolutions. 3% would be shockingly high in my mind, though 2% could be the case. In any event it's pointless to speculate on those who aren't saying since it's impossible to get more then an estimated range, and even those end up odd sometimes such as the estimate that gays make up 2-10% of the population depending on the source.

Well here's the thing that crosses my mind when it comes to "evolutionary reasons", that assumes transgenderism is a genetic expression. Also a fair few trans folk transition late in life, often after living most of their lives as cisgender heterosexuals and having families, raising children, and so on. This is also especially compounded with the fact that even the idea of transition being a valid option is a very new idea. Also many still claim that transition isn't a valid option, even within medical circles. So in the per-industry setting, a trans person would not only have to hide their identity, would still likely produce offspring due to social pressures, because people had children younger. So even if they committed suicide, they'd still likely have been pressured into having children first.

The reason I have issues with the evolutionary argument along with the genetic argument is fairly simple, besides it goes for homosexuals and asexuals too. If it were any sort of genetic, or evolutionary trait, such traits would have been bread out of the human population entirely by now. This is solely because they're traits that work against potential to reproduce. I'm not arguing it's a consious choice either, but an evolutionary argument means that such traits would have been bread out of us just by natural selection.

The problem with this line of thinking is that unless you can establish evidence for your claim you also can't discredit those findings. I mean, the other orientations and transsexuality still manage to get over 4% representation and they sure as hell have a higher likelihood of persecution for those identifications. I think, given this, it is a fairly safe conclusion that they are a lot rarer than the other groups unless we find other significant barriers to it than what other orientations/identities provide.

Just because I can't discredit the findings doesn't necessarily mean that they're completely valid either. A post transition trans person, especially one who had sexual reassignment surgery, isn't going to want to out themselves for a huge slew of reasons. Some of those reasons are the same as a trans person still in the closet. Trans folk of all the LGBTIQ community get the most harassment, we're still the most likely to get murdered for being our selves. But the big reason a post transition person would lie about it is because it allows people to call their entire being into question. Spending as much time and money as it takes to transition is a huge investment in one's self worth and identity to have thrown to the wind just by answering honestly if one is trans. There are a lot of incentives for trans folk not to be truthful on the subject in this case, especially because of how much torment dysphoria causes even when we pass perfectly. When a statement like; "that outfit makes you look a little boyish", can ruin ones self confidence for months, is it any wonder why so many of us would be guarded in the extreme with the fact we're trans? Not really, no.

I'm not saying I'm going to throw out the entire statistic out of hand, but at the same time I'm not really going to trust it implicitly either. Besides there are so many number tricks they pull that skew statistics, that I just flat don't trust statistics period. When the problem is trustworthy data the related statistic is no more valid than the skepticism against it.

 

[McElroy]

Frankly and unfortunately in my mind an asexual man (can't really say about ladies) is broken. The situation is sort of possible to imagine, I've been a child without a sex drive too, but if a dick doesn't get hard at times then it's broken. But again I don't know any asexual guys - probably never will - (they would be too afraid to admit it anyway) so the mindset doesn't have to change. It really is that easy to think asexuality is just some thing people sometimes talk about in the internet.

So as far as the topic goes, in my quest for greater understanding I kinda echo the general statement, but for me asexuality stands on the far fringes.

What you're missing here is something very important here. Being asexual does not mean that arousal doesn't happen at all, it means that speaking from a sexuality stand point that; sex is unimportant, uninteresting, or/and undesirable, as in a lack of sexual attraction period. Erectile dysfunction isn't the same thing as asexuality, because people with erectile dysfunction still feel sexual attraction, they just have problems acting on it, because of sexual dysfunction. Being asexual doesn't mean a person, in this case a man specifically, is broken, all it means they don't feel sexually attracted to anyone in particular.

Thanks for the answer. I said it a bit jokingly, but I wasn't confusing erectile dysfunciton with asexuality. Now with all the explanations in mind what I get is an unforced (body parts work fine) forced (not gonna change) celibacy (sex means nothing) or not (some outward influence/reason to bang anyway). What is a wet dream to an asexual? If the parts work then a guy will have needs, so it becomes just routine maintenance? Horniness for an asexual guy is basically "oh shit, not this again"? It's all so alien.

I just can't really see a "normal" guy going "meh" on sexuality. A cultural thing (I'd guess), but an asexual is missing something I think everyone should have - that's the feeling in my gut. I can rationalize things enough not to spread ignorant bs, but I might be a person described as "not helping" should the topic ever come up. It's super rare too, on top of every individual being different - makes it hard to imagine Struggles of Asexuals at all. Note that I'm not looking for an excuse to not give a shit. I'm just really not a fan of spreading misinformation.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

If you're going to talk about science please don't drag bad philosophy into this.

Evolution is a description of things that happen. It is a phenomenon. It does NOT say what is meant to be. Sorry but thunder isn't the sky getting angry and evolution doesn't have any intent.

And please, core principles? Core principle for how it functions is not the same as a core principle in regards to what *should* be.

This is like saying rockets go against nature because gravity says small things are attracted to larger things. So please stop injecting your own personal ideas and thoughts, this absurd idea of 'meant to be' into a description of what *is* and NOT what should be.

Right, the point is that evolution happens, yes, it's something that 9 out of 10 dentists agree on, and it may have been formed because of a whole bunch of random variables decided that this single planet of ours will have life on it and evolve through the ages to change from what they used to be. You are right, there was no bullshit guidance of a greater being behind that.

However, what I'm trying to say is that the reason why it actually worked is because we all have sex drives. It is a fairly normal human capability like, as someone said above, walking. (And yes, in this case asexuals can just have sex anyway, but that is us compensating for the sex drive just like we may build prosthetic legs or wheelchairs. It's the sex drive we are talking about, not the organs.) The reason I mention it as a core principle is because without it, evolution wouldn't work. And it bloody well worked in our case, at least. I get you are trying to say nothing is intended and yet we can see what has happened in this world of ours and see what caused it.

I do agree that it shouldn't necessarily be seen as a straight up guideline, since we humans have ways of fixing things we don't like or hold us back. But to claim that we are not meant to have it would be to say that like, 99% of the population just happened to roll the genes (or whatever, my biology knowledge only extends so far on that one) with it. It's the norm, not the exception. On that note, I would like to know if there is actually a gene or a hormone that suppresses sex drive, and if asexuals exhibit it.

 

[Raggedstar]

I'm an asexual female in my mid-20s. Never had sex. Doesn't appeal to me, and I don't have a particularly strong sense of attraction to either sex (beyond what some may call a "squish"). Had bloodwork and nothing is wrong with ol' hormones, so...yep. I'm just not into the whole sex thing and I don't have attraction to anyone.

I've never heard of any systematic "oppression" towards asexuals, especially not at the level of persecution the homosexuals and transsexuals face. I know my parents would rather me be a lesbian than an asexual, but I'm not fearing a legally-binding arranged marriage or being evicted. Might be more of an awareness issue. Most of what I get is the "you haven't found the right person yet", "you're going to die alone", "you'll never know the joy of being with someone you truly care about", "you're just sad because people think you're ugly", "asexuality is stupid! You must be sick or hormonally unbalanced" etc. Obnoxious and sometimes hurtful, but far from a lynching. I know on the religion front I've never heard of people actively caring if people have sex or not, mostly because we're not doing anything to outright anger them (are there any Bible verses that condemn asexuality? I've never heard of any). Sure Christianity (among other religions) praise married sex for procreation, but many religious folk are choose to be celibate, or view it at "self control". And besides, they would rather people have no sex at all than have sex while unmarried and/or with someone of the same sex. Atheists I know are condemned far more than asexuals (though again, not as badly as gay or trans people), but a lack or attacking of belief is considered a greater threat than lacking sexuality.

Oddly enough, I've had gay and bi people say asexuality didn't exist. In that same breath, people in that group complained when people said their sexuality didn't exist. Just thought I would like to share that tidbit.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

Though you make a good point, there's already solid evidence that homosexuality is genetic in nature and not something which occurs after birth, to the point where it's safe to say that 'born that way' pretty much the case. No one is sure why homosexuality has survived recorded history (though there are quite a few theories). We know that heterosexual reproduction is instinctual, and with homosexuality being genetic I think it's safe to say all other deviations from the norm may also be purely biological. We are seeing more and more evidence by the day that gender is instinctual, and based in biology, to the point where culture and society may actually play less of a role in it then we thought it did 30 years ago, not more so.

This is all work in the hard sciences which is still ongoing however, but I do think it's safe to say that the proportion of the population which is straight cis is over 90%, and that all forms of sexuality have, at least in a large enough part to matter, basis in biology.