There's a difference between something being common and it being 'normal psychological functioning '. I get that the extreme reproduction crowd has no empathy for anyone else but really this is pushing it a bit far.MrFalconfly said:
I Want to Understand the Struggles of Asexuals
- Thread starter Dizchu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There's also a difference between "not functioning like me" and "not properly functioning," and asexuals are in the former camp. That pepople are going to dictionaries instead of medical associations indicates that this is not a mental disorder in and of itself. There is, to my knowledge, no reputable body in medical or mental health that views asexuality as a mental disorder. No amount of protesting a layperson's understanding to them is going to change their mind, nor will anyone get anywhere arguing the dictionary.Secondhand Revenant said:
The reality is that this is arguing along the same lines that once branded homosexuality a mental disorder. Thing is, that was driven more by prejudice than science. And to clear things up, I don't know or care if it's the case here that it's prejudice. I'm just heading off the "but psychologists were wrong before, Amy! You just proved it!" argument.
This, especially the upper paragraph, sounds like a whole bunch of made up Tumblr-style special snowflake nonsense. If you experience zero sexual attraction but have romantic feelings, that's asexuality.DizzyChuggernaut said:
What is this supposed to even mean? How do you even get off if you experience zero sexual attraction to anyone or anything? What "urge"? What do you masturbate to? What can you masturbate to in that situation?
Interestingly enough , asexuality has also been accused of sounding like a "whole bunch of made up Tumblr-style special snowflake nonsense."bartholen said:
Because sexual attraction isn't the same thing as libido.
Well technically every single term ever used to describe human sexuality and the lack thereof is "made up".bartholen said:
I don't see how asexuality being a spectrum is necessarily "special snowflake nonsense". Sure, some of the more needlessly specific terms like demisexuality probably have very limited usage, but concepts like being "romantic or aromantic" make asexuality a bit more complex than being a single box. Different configurations of sexual attraction, arousal and romantic interest (for different genders, even) make these labels useful. Maybe not to you but if you're an asexual these terms become extremely useful.
Arousal and sexual attraction are not the same thing. If you masturbate to images of women (for example), does that mean you want to have sex with them? Sometimes, but it's hardly a universal thing.
Let me provide a comparison. Violent video games. They're cathartic, I love the adrenaline rush of aggressively dispatching enemies, but in real life? I couldn't hurt a fly. I really like the gruesome imagery in violent video games, but I also have no desire of seeing any such imagery in real life. Similarly, someone can be aroused by erotic material, enjoy indulging in sexual ideas, but have no desire of having sex. I don't mean that they consciously avoid having sex, I mean they literally have no interest.
DizzyChuggernaut said:
I'm not a doctor, so you shouldn't be asking me what is normal and what isn't.Secondhand Revenant said:
At the most I just showed that dictionary definitions can vary.
EDIT:
Also I didn't just say "doesn't want to reproduce". I said never ever during their entire lifespan ever had the urge to reproduce.
That's quite a big difference.
Sure, but the definition you quoted doesn't vary much from the Wikipedia definition I quoted. There's a difference between an unusual physical or psychological variation and a "serious impairment".MrFalconfly said:
The only difference is the timescale. It's not unusual for people to never want to reproduce. Having a kid isn't on everyone's bucket list and that's completely normal. Will they change their minds? Maybe, maybe not. People are different.
Timescale is a massive difference when it comes to plastic (as in malleable) beings like ourselves.DizzyChuggernaut said:
We change over time according to different stimuli (including wish for procreation, and libido).
That's true, but doesn't change anything. If a person never in their entire life develops a desire to have children, I don't know what makes it an abnormality. Uncommon? Yeah. But "uncommon" and "abnormal" are not synonyms. There is nothing inherently detrimental to being childless.MrFalconfly said:
Well strictly speaking, if I have to be a boring sod, and forget everything about interesting ethical arguments, then I would probably classify that as a slight abnormality, for the simple reason that life as we know it on this planet only has two functions:DizzyChuggernaut said:
1) Self preservation
2) Reproduction
Everything else is basically a luxury.
Now I'm not saying that because something is "abnormal" it's "bad" (loads of fun stuff aren't strictly speaking normal). I'm only saying that it isn't normal (in a statistical sense).
EDIT:
Now one could say that "abnormal" would be the wrong word to use, probably because some stuck up US Americans have attributed a few "negative connotations" to the word, but I'm not gonna let people in a different country decide what perfectly valid terminology I'm going to use just because they think it's "not nice" (but that's just me, and my upbringing which included candy like this
And yes those are boobs and they are sold to kids).
The word "abnormal" is quite widely used in a derogatory way, in the same way words like "unique" or "extraordinary" are used in positive ways. While you could say that they all generally mean the same thing, like all words there are subtle differences. Not to mention that the word "normal" doesn't mean "common" or "average", it means conforming to a certain standard and lacking traits that may inhibit it from reaching that standard.MrFalconfly said:
For example, being a six foot tall woman is uncommon but it's still "normal". Having dwarfism or gigantism on the other hand is both uncommon and abnormal. Similarly cancers are quite common diseases but they're obviously abnormalities because they inhibit the normal function of the body.
Well I already addressed that in my edited post.DizzyChuggernaut said:
But just for brevity let's just call my usage of the word "abnormal", "my little protest against US Americans who get hung up on connotations instead of the actual valid meaning of a word".
Er...not quite. Reproduction doesn't have to be done by each individual, as long as it is by the collective. There are many examples of creatures in which many individuals will not reproduce, but they help ensure the survival of their group. All sorts of colonial insects, for example.MrFalconfly said:
There's a difference between population studies (which you are mentioning, with colonial insects, and sustainable populations), and the general observation of requirements for life.thaluikhain said:
Maladaptive is the term for qualities that harm reproduction. Self preservation actually doesn't matter as long as reproduction is successful. This is why we have successfully evolved creatures that die during reproduction but produce successfully reproducing offspring (ergo successful reproduction). In a lot of ways, successful reproduction is "self preservation" in that your genes are preserved.MrFalconfly said:Well strictly speaking, if I have to be a boring sod, and forget everything about interesting ethical arguments, then I would probably classify that as a slight abnormality, for the simple reason that life as we know it on this planet only has two functions:DizzyChuggernaut said:
1) Self preservation
2) Reproduction
Everything else is basically a luxury.
Now I'm not saying that because something is "abnormal" it's "bad" (loads of fun stuff aren't strictly speaking normal). I'm only saying that it isn't normal (in a statistical sense).
EDIT:
Now one could say that "abnormal" would be the wrong word to use, probably because some stuck up US Americans have attributed a few "negative connotations" to the word, but I'm not gonna let people in a different country decide what perfectly valid terminology I'm going to use just because they think it's "not nice" (but that's just me, and my upbringing which included candy like this
And yes those are boobs and they are sold to kids).
It would be scientifically correct to call these traits both abnormal and maladaptive. Abnormal can be anything that is uncommon (so the poster you were quoting was already conceding the point when acknowledging that it differs from the norm) but is most frequently used with an undesirable trait. I would posit that non-heterosexual traits are largely undesirable to actually have. I would not wish to only be attracted to people with whom I could not reproduce with and I would also not with to not be attracted to anyone, even people I would desire to engage in romanticism with. I would not wish either conditions on my offspring either though I certainly would not condemn or love them less were they to have those traits. So yeah, abnormal and maladaptive are technically appropriate. The only problem in stating them as so is that both terms seem to convey the message of negativity that people with abnormal or maladaptive traits are bad themselves or doing something wrong. So even when explaining this classification of those traits it is always vital to distinguish between the scientific reasoning behind it and the misconceptions it bears that you aren't trying to convey.
Even then, it is touchy to a lot of people and will still hurt feelings. No one wants to be told they have maladaptive traits that they specifically identify with. Especially not in a world where the perception of "abnormalcy" is often met with bigotry. In such a world as that it is very difficult to concede a point like this on face value when it feels like they are giving ground to the bigots who harass them for it. It doesn't make the statement untrue, but it certainly warrants more consideration in any discussion involving it.
Duly noted on all fronts.Lightknight said:Maladaptive is the term for qualities that harm reproduction. Self preservation actually doesn't matter as long as reproduction is successful. This is why we have successfully evolved creatures that die during reproduction but produce successfully reproducing offspring (ergo successful reproduction). In a lot of ways, successful reproduction is "self preservation" in that your genes are preserved.MrFalconfly said:Well strictly speaking, if I have to be a boring sod, and forget everything about interesting ethical arguments, then I would probably classify that as a slight abnormality, for the simple reason that life as we know it on this planet only has two functions:DizzyChuggernaut said:
1) Self preservation
2) Reproduction
Everything else is basically a luxury.
Now I'm not saying that because something is "abnormal" it's "bad" (loads of fun stuff aren't strictly speaking normal). I'm only saying that it isn't normal (in a statistical sense).
EDIT:
Now one could say that "abnormal" would be the wrong word to use, probably because some stuck up US Americans have attributed a few "negative connotations" to the word, but I'm not gonna let people in a different country decide what perfectly valid terminology I'm going to use just because they think it's "not nice" (but that's just me, and my upbringing which included candy like this
And yes those are boobs and they are sold to kids).
It would be scientifically correct to call these traits both abnormal and maladaptive. The only problem in doing so is that both terms seem to convey the message of negativity that people with abnormal or maladaptive traits are bad themselves or doing something wrong. So even when explaining this classification of those traits it is always vital to distinguish between the scientific reasoning behind it and the misconceptions it bears that you aren't trying to convey.
Even then, it is touchy to a lot of people and will still hurt feelings. No one wants to be told they have maladaptive traits that they specifically identify with. Especially not in a world where the perception of "abnormalcy" is often met with bigotry. In such a world as that it is very difficult to concede a point like this on face value when it feels like they are giving ground to the bigots who harass them for it. It doesn't make the statement untrue, but it certainly warrants more consideration in any discussion involving it.
To be honest I've never heard the term "maladaptive" before (but thank you for adding it to my English vocabulary. It's always nice to be corrected on your second language, since it means there's still things to learn).
I didn't see a need to reiterate as several others had already done so, but what I meant was that having a sex drive is the result of a key feature, not that we're all meant to reproduce. I've always known that I don't want children and had my tubes blocked a few years ago.
Is having hair on our heads necessary? No, of course it isn't. But if a young person suddenly loses all of their hair, it's an abnormality and not a variation like hair color. (BTW, I don't agree with the idea that asexuality is primarily a mental disorder.)DizzyChuggernaut said:
Let's not forget that sex is a key component in many successful relationships. The inability to be attracted (sexually) to one's partners will typically effect the long-term success and fulfillment of the relationship. Asking why sex is "necessary" is kind of like asking why it's necessary to have two arms or why it's necessary to be happy. It's not but it is part of having a healthy normal life in ways that are traditionally seen as desirable. Most conditions do not impact something that is strictly "necessary" but do impact a person's day to day life in a potentially negative way. An inability to be sexually attracted to one's romantic partner could be easily categorized within this area but whether or not it is a disorder may is reliant to the person's own perception of it. If it causes severe personal dysphoria (for example, if they find themselves unable to maintain relationships due to it and that makes them sad) or if it is a condition they would make go away if they could due to negative feelings towards it or more positive feelings towards the norm then it could reasonably be seen as such in this light. But intrinsically is would be a maladaptive trait but not inherently a disorder.1981 said:
Not that you said it is a disorder. I'm just discussing the topic that they brought up when telling you your terminology was akin to it.