I Want to Understand the Struggles of Asexuals

[Radoh]

The "struggles" I think might be a bit of a stretch, at least for me. Yes I do get the occasional person mislabeling or misunderstanding, sometimes they think that if I'm not into men or women then I must be into children or pets (what?) but on the plus side I don't get a lot of bible thumpers tell me that my "way of life" is an abomination unto their lord so I got that going for me.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

Unlike legs attraction is just an impulse. This is bordering on calling people broken for personality traits you don't think lead to reproduction. It's absurd. And having sex anyways is not the same as a prosthetic leg. It's not some outside force.

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.

No it would not be like claiming that to say we aren't meant to have it. Because it is not only either meant to be or utterly random. A trait can exist not because it is meant to or randomly, it can exist just because it was beneficial in regards to reproduction and survival. That is not the same as 'meant to'. Meant to is more than just a description.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

"Struggles of Asexuals" sounds like a rather contradictory statement. If you're not sexually interested in anyone or anything, how can you face struggles over it? There's no authority on earth that's saying not having sex at all is an abomination, sin, abnormality etc. Can you think of any stereotypes about asexuals? Jokes demeaning asexuals? Cases where an asexual would have been discriminated against specifically because of their asexuality? No you can't. Because there aren't any. It's like trying to make fun of air.

If anything, being asexual would seem to remove a lot of struggles from one's life, since you're not competing for sexual attractiveness with your peers, or constantly being distracted by your raging hormones.

And frankly, I find the notion that asexuality has been lumped together into the LGBTQ... phenomenon (?) (I don't really know what to call it) kind of irritating. Like you're minding your own business, and suddenly some people come and tell you "You're one of us now! Isn't it horrible being you, oppressed and all? Well we're here to help! Join us and rise from that pit!" I find that kind of group mentality disturbing, no matter where I see it.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

Before I can even give that any credibility I need a source on that, because you're making the claim that the gay gene has been found... Such a revelation would be plastered all over the news.

 

[Zontar]

Before I can even give that any credibility I need a source on that, because you're making the claim that the gay gene has been found... Such a revelation would be plastered all over the news.

I didn't mean there's a gay gene (it's been a long day, high tension election up here right now, anyone's game between the two major parties), what I meant to say was that the evidence seems to point that its origins is biological in nature, which WAS all over the news a few years back. I don't pretend to understand it (I'm not a biologist) but it seems there's something that causes one to be homosexual that also gives some advantage in survival. It sure isn't exclusively human, pretty much all dimorphic mammals have shown a sub-sect of their populations to be homosexual, so we know whatever it is probably isn't a social construct from that alone.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

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

Thank you for asking though (also your avatar is awesome)

on the plus side I don't get a lot of bible thumpers tell me that my "way of life" is an abomination unto their lord so I got that going for me.

Bible community says asexuality is mostly okay (only if you're heteromantic or aromantic. If you're homoromantic, biromantic or panomantic then you get to burn in hell with the rest of em). They'd also prefer no masturbation.

Those with little desire for sex may be in a good position to serve the Lord because they are able to remain single without falling into sinful thoughts that result from sexual frustration. However, those who do find that they must marry in order to avoid burning with lustful thoughts or succumbing to temptation to fornicate do not commit any sin by marrying; Paul notes, "every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

Some youthful asexual Christians may be dismayed by others' suspicion of their lack of romantic interest in the opposite sex as implying that they are closeted homosexuals. This type of willfully hateful slander is ironic indeed coming, as it often does, from leftists who claim to be tolerant of homosexuality and yet use accusations of it as a form of derision and disparagement against those unmarried persons who choose to remain chaste. This type of inconsistency is typical of hypocritical ideologies that are willing to discard principles of logic whenever they are inconvenient. To avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from making an explicitly disparaging comment, these unbelievers will typically mask their ridicule in plausible deniability by relying on snide innuendo.

The rest of the article if you feel like having a good laugh. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Asexuality]

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

Before I can even give that any credibility I need a source on that, because you're making the claim that the gay gene has been found... Such a revelation would be plastered all over the news.

There's a difference between finding evidence of fire, and no other explanation for the smoke, and actually finding the fire.

You still call the fire department when there's evidence of a fire, especially if it proves a point you've been trying to make about fire safety standards.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

Unlike legs attraction is just an impulse. This is bordering on calling people broken for personality traits you don't think lead to reproduction. It's absurd. And having sex anyways is not the same as a prosthetic leg. It's not some outside force.

Reducing the sexual and reproductive drive in humans and animals down to "impulse" is crazy. It's certainly not a function of personality, and animals we wouldn't claim have anything like personalities are subject to it. I think it's wildly arrogant to think that because we're upright and talking, we're just subject to an impulse like a personality trait. You're talking about something that can drive people literally insane, literally to die, commit crimes, or take brutal chances with their bodies. Sex, and more generally reproduction, has more to do with being human than art, language, and walking around. It was here long before that, and unless we play our cards very right, that will be most of what's left of us. We're genes, striving to keep going. As far as anyone can tell, we're the current tip of a spear that's been going for a couple of billion years. That has not been going on because continuity is left up to "personality".

I'm simply distinguishing it from the rest of the body. It's not a physical feature, it's more the brain. And differences there aren't someone being 'broken' unless they're a mental illness and even then that's a rather absurd word to use.

Literally drive people insane though? Literally die? I think it's other foolish notions surrounding the idea and how they handle it that lead to that. If people can survive without it then I think that's says that those that can't are quite possibly suffering from some other issues that make the difference.

 

[Flames66]

I am not asexual. The closest thing I have found to me is aromantic. I have a fairly active sex drive but no interest in what we loosely define as "relationships". To me, relationships are a manipulative, insincere mess designed to put people in neat little boxes, waste everyone's time and energy, and destroy individuality.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

You do realize that this gives credence to some of your postulations about why they may not be as persecuted as the others, right? If people question their existence at all then why would there be a social movement to crush them as there was with homosexuals and transsexuals. So while they may not be enlightening you directly you could see this as social commentary pertaining to the struggles of assexuals to be more widely recognized albeit not the struggles of direct persecution (not typically) that you might see elsewhere.

That's because society gets pissy when you fuck with someone they don't want you to. They don't get pissy in the absence of it.

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.

And yet trans people who may not want to "out themselves" as anything but their identifying gender still manage to get noticeable representation.

My point is that those groups still account for 4% of the population and have active persecution to deal with. So why would you suppose that asexuals would respond at a lower rate than the groups if your argument is aversion to outing oneself?

 

[Lightknight]

I guess the biggest annoyance (Not a real struggle) is having people trying to hit on me, I've had instances where girls (And guys) have tried hitting on me just to later be informed by one of my peers or myself that I have no interest in seeking that type of relationships, then they just stop talking to me altogether and try to avoid me as much as possible.

The other annoyance is having people not able to comprehend someone having a libido that goes through the floor and beyond. I've often been asked the question on whether I like boys or girls and whenever I respond "Neither" they get into this annoying "Oh c'mon please tell me" mood that can really rile me up after about 45 minutes.

However these experiences are just that, annoyances. I would actually argue being asexual has had more benefits in the past than actual struggles thus I wouldn't consider asexuality a "protected class".

Thanks for your input. We are in bad need of asexual perspectives here.

If it makes you feel any better, people in general get annoyed at being hit on whenever they don't want to. For you that would be every time, sure, but hopefully you know that they're not hitting on you because you're asexual and are just hitting on you as part of the general human experience. If that doesn't help at all then forgive my interjection.

 

[elvor0]

See, what I don't get is this whole "spectrum of asexuality". I have tried to understand it, but it ends up annoying me. I /cannot/ wrap my head round the idea of having a spectrum of 0.

Oxford Dictionary: A person who has no sexual feelings or desires.

Is what it keeps coming back to for me, to harken back to an earlier poster, you can't have a spectrum of black. Pure, genuine black as in the absence of light; the second you introduce light, it stops being black.

I really struggle to get past the notion that it's just people trying to have some element of uniqueness to them. Because to me, if you get aroused, you're not asexual, you're just someone with a very low sex drive or have sex very, very low down the priority list. There shouldn't be caviats, like "Oh not gay/bi, but I do like having sex with dudes on Wednesdays"

As an example, I have a friend who will get it on if a girl comes on to him and he'll be quite up for it, but I have never seen or heard of him pursuing any kind of romantic/sexual relationship in his spare time because he simply doesn't care to and he's said as much himself. Some people in the exact same situation have described themselves as asexual, and that doesn't cut it for me.

For now, I think there needs to be a lot more research done into the matter because there seems to be so many different definitions from different people that it makes it difficult for me to see defining characteristics for self descriptions other than "This person has 0 sex drive".

And as a note, I'm not lumping asexuals who choose to have sex with their sexual partners in here, that's different.

Well being that I'm asexual, panromantic, and trans, I tend to have a rather unique experience.

Out of curiosity, what does being panromantic mean to you? Where do you draw the line between romance and sexuality? Is there a difference between two very close friends and a romantic relation ship with a lack of sexuality?

 

[Dizchu]

See, what I don't get is this whole "spectrum of asexuality". I have tried to understand it, but it ends up annoying me. I /cannot/ wrap my head round the idea of having a spectrum of 0.

There are people who experience no sexual attraction but experience romantic feelings. There are people who experience no sexual attraction but they'll masturbate just to satisfy the urge. There are people who experience sexual attraction but have no desire to have sex. As I said before, the line between this and celibacy are blurry, but "celibacy" is more of a conscious thing.

But then there's ideas like "demisexuality" which I am a lot more uncomfortable with because they seem to be needlessly specific. Personally I think it refers to a certain attitude towards relationships rather than a distinct "sexuality". I mean I and many non-asexuals may fall under the "demisexual" category without knowing (or caring).

 

[Musette]

You know, it always makes me chuckle to see just how contradictory "you're not asexual if..." statements can be. (Apparently, you're not asexual if you have a sex drive, but you're also not asexual if you do not have a sex drive.) I honestly can't will myself to care about who does or does not fit the label; I generally give declarations of identity the benefit of the doubt.

I'd like to think my asexuality is pretty unambiguous, though my lack of a libido apparently calls that into question for some. (I've recently had a physical and some bloodwork, and I'm pretty damn healthy. No doctor has ever expressed concern about my hormone levels and I have no reason to suspect that I have any endocrine issues). If you want to be precise, I'm an aromantic asexual, and I've had a simple enough time flying under the radar. I think most people just assume I'm straight and I don't go out of my way to challenge that. On the rare occasion that I have to explain myself to others, I find myself avoiding the label unless the other person expresses familiarity with the term one way or another. (Asexuality 101 has gotten so bloated with terminology that I'd rather just explain my own experiences instead of my own plus every conceivable form of asexuality.) Thankfully, most people in my life don't try to regularly prod into my love life (or lack thereof), but asexuals that do run into that issue may almost feel coerced into showing their hand. (We'll see how long it takes before those "biological clock" comments start coming in, though that's far more of a child-free commentary than an asexual one.)

Honestly, it's an identity that (for me,) is based on the absence of something, so I can't really say it's a part of myself that I would choose to wear on my sleeve. (My identity as a musician, however, is something that I'm far more loud and proud about.) I don't see my orientation as something that makes me special or unique, and I can't say I've ever had much interest in discussing the topic offline. (In fact, my interest in even discussing the topic online has waned considerably in recent years. There's just other stuff that I'm more interested in talking about.) Still, I can honestly say that my "stealth" (you could say that I'm closeted, but that implies that I'm actively trying to hide my identity) in regards to my asexuality made the topic a non-issue in my life so far. I suppose that my stealth won't last forever as I enter stages of life where you're expected to be married, trying to get married, or have been previously married, but I'd like to hope that most people won't make too big of a fuss about that.

 

[FPLOON]

As a perverted asexual, I'm like a more juicy contradiction than a fucking starburst to all but one of my friends... With that said, I think the biggest struggle for asexuals in general is the misunderstandings that come from the term "asexuality" and the like because a lot of people have come to this particular absolution about humanity in general that even the thought of a potential contradiction to said absolution feels more like a misdirection than a legitimate outcome to one's own life... That's not to say that you won't have people trying to understand it further like my own mother watching the 2011 (A)Sexual documentary[footnote]I think you can legally see it free online, like on Hulu, but don't quote me on that... [/footnote] after I told her that I was asexual, but there are still people out that that [are like my uncle and] assume that you just don't know your own sexuality, let alone lying about it to the people that "care" about you like your own family... Sure, the latter can be an extreme you wouldn't assume to be seen happening to an asexual, for example, but I think for the most part, the fact that not everyone even knows that the term "asexual" exist, let alone what it actual means, leads to a good chunk of the "asexual struggle" coming from a lack of understanding and/or a constant misunderstanding...

Anyway, I still don't know if I'm helping or hurting the cause for asexual understanding, but I do know that despite all of the perverted conversations/references I have with my friends, it does not change the fact that I lack true sexual attraction to the people I can imagine having a romantic relationship with if I got to know them better from that kind of perspective, I only masturbate to tell my libido to shut the fuck up, and I fucking love cake, especially chocolate cake, a lot more than I apparently should... (Still not sure if that last thing's related or not...)

 

[1981]

Well being that I'm asexual, panromantic, and trans, I tend to have a rather unique experience.

Out of curiosity, what does being panromantic mean to you? Where do you draw the line between romance and sexuality? Is there a difference between two very close friends and a romantic relation ship with a lack of sexuality?

You weren't asking me, but I'll answer anyway. There are boundaries that you don't cross with your friends. They're too many to list, and the line is often blurry, but there's at least the distinct difference between a bro hug and cuddling. There are things you'd do for that special someone that you wouldn't bother doing for your friends. You acknowledge the presence of your friends, but your SO lights up a room and makes everyone else fade away.

The funny thing is that I never experienced these things before the age of 30. I dated people but never felt lonely or missed them when they were gone. Those relationships never lasted more than a few months. You could say I was aromantic. Maybe things changed because I met someone that I dated for a whopping three years, or maybe it was a hormonal thing, or a bit of both. Now I'm actually lonely. I'm thinking about getting a cat. To clarify, I'm not saying it's always an age thing.

Clarification #2: when I said I have a tendency to hit on people indiscriminately, I didn't mean suggesting they'd go out and/or have sex with me, but that I sometimes verbally cross those boundaries.

 

[viranimus]

Asexuality is a thing, it's not a debate.

Not to offend you but as someone working in the field asexuality is still very much being debated by the psychiatric field, and with the general stance still being that Asexuality is a mental disorder and not a sexual orientation it seems that it would be in the best interest of asexuals to hope the debate is still going.

Again not trying to be dismissive of asexuals, Just wanting to make a correction on a statement that is factually incorrect.

 

[Dizchu]

Not to offend you but as someone working in the field asexuality is still very much being debated by the psychiatric field, and with the general stance still being that Asexuality is a mental disorder and not a sexual orientation it seems that it would be in the best interest of asexuals to hope the debate is still going.

Again not trying to be dismissive of asexuals, Just wanting to make a correction on a statement that is factually incorrect.

Things are going to get awkward when a better understanding of genetics and imaging techniques end the debate. It's probably going to be a mental disorder, and probably one that people feel isn't. There are stranger things though, like Morgellons

The opening line of the Wikipedia article on "Mental disorder" says the following:

A mental disorder, also called a mental illness, psychological disorder or psychiatric disorder, is mental or behavioral pattern that causes either suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life.

Asexuality is by definition not a mental disorder, because it doesn't necessarily hinder a person's ability to function in ordinary life. Much like homosexuality, the problem arises because of poor treatment from other people.

I'll agree that asexuality is an uncommon quirk, maybe from a purely evolutionary point of view it is a "disadvantage". But we're not talking about a species which is struggling to procreate, we're talking about a highly social species that is 7 billion strong. "Disorder" means exactly what its etymology suggests, a lack of order. I will go as far as to say that asexuals, when not considering external societal pressures, might even have advantages seeing as sexuality can bring so much misery and confusion to people.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

Well we could also use the Merriam Webster dictionary which states.

mental disorder
noun
Medical Definition of MENTAL DISORDER

: a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual?called also mental illness

Now this would imply that asexuality is indeed a disorder since one normal thing for a person is the wish to reproduce, and a clinical lack of such during the entirety of said persons life would be an abnormality.

 

[Dizchu]

Now this would imply that asexuality is indeed a disorder since one normal thing for a person is the wish to reproduce, and a clinical lack of such during the entirety of said persons life would be an abnormality.

I know plenty of people (including myself) who absolutely love sex but also have no desire to reproduce. Does that make me "disordered"? Similarly there are asexuals who want to reproduce but have no interest in sex.

The definition you used still defines "mental disorder" as a "serious impairment", but I have to ask what is necessary about having sex? Compare asexuality to mental disorders like autism, depression, insomnia, substance addiction and so on. Each of those present obstacles for functioning normally and may even be a direct risk to the individual's health. Asexuality? Not so much. Now sexual dysfunction? That's something else entirely.