[The A Life Team]

Hey everyone,

This is the poll for A Life Podcast episode 14, in which the panel discusses sexperts blurting out whatever suits their fancy about a topic they clearly don't have any interest in understanding.

~The A Life Team

[Fi_Loubet]

I don't know if I'm overstepping any bounds by posting a comment in this thread; but whenever I hear (or read) a sexpert give advice, it seems as though they have an agenda that stems from a pretty limited philosophy of what constitutes a healthy sexuality, or healthy sexual behaviour. They claim to be 'progressive' and 'liberal', but from my experiences, most of them are unwilling to have their ideas challenged.

[The MoUsY spell-checker]

Even if one were to assume that sexperts have a point, it is still up to them to present evidence for their point, and many of them don't seem to do that.

Say, when sexperts attempt to explain asexuality by saying that people who call themselves asexuals are really just sexually repressed, they are introducing a new claim and thus the burden of proof is now on them, but they don't seem to present anything to back up their claim. So, they seem to be just appealing to their authority as "sexperts", which is not a good way to argue any point. Also, many sexperts don't seem to have done much (if any) research on asexuality, and so asexuality is not their area of expertise anyway.

[Sally]

I think the agenda for sexperts is that they like to make money. They do that by talking about sex which (almost) everyone is interested in, and selling books with BS pronouncements and advice, and starting websites with advertising on them. They're about as credible as a beer salesperson.

[Tikva]

Sally, on Nov 28 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

I think the agenda for sexperts is that they like to make money. They do that by talking about sex which (almost) everyone is interested in, and selling books with BS pronouncements and advice, and starting websites with advertising on them. They're about as credible as a beer salesperson.

My thoughts exactly.

[prettyeyes]

To be honest? I think they're full of cow manure. If they really gave a darn about what constituted a healthy sex life, they would ask asexuals what constituted a healthy sex life for us, and once they saw that we don't want it at all or not often but were very happy with that, they would logically have to say it was fine.

[Matt]

I voted other, although this post could turn out to be closer to one of the other options.

I suspect they're in the whole business for the money. Sex sells, and I suppose if it makes your sex better it probably sells pretty well. Form the little I've seen of them, it seems that the mechanism they use is getting people to 'get over' any sexual act or whatever they have an 'issue' with. However we upset their nice little ideas, since we don't want to do anything and we're happy about that. Generally they think that more sex = good, and that different sex = good, so more and different sex=happier people. As a result happy people without sex makes no sense at all, hence they come up with repression to 'explain' it, and also give the idea that the asexual is 'broken' and needs 'fixing' - handily enough by giving the 'sexpert' money. If they say 'you're asexual and that's fine', even if you stay in some sort of therapy it not going to be with them, so they won't get your money.
There's also threat elimination. The concept of sex not being all-important damages the, 'Sex is everything, so make sure it's good', message which runs through it. Therefore they have to find a reason that people being happy without sex, and the idea that they're broken is ideal of the purpose.
There's also the potential that in convincing you you're broken they might actually break you and make you uncomfortable with sex, when before you just weren't interested, at which point they get to 'fix' you again. Or maybe I'm over-analysing all this.
I think that they may actually be useful to some people for single issues, but unless they drop the notion of 'more sex is better. Always. Without question.' then they aren't going to be the experts in human sexuality that they claim to be.

Regarding the 'omnipotent fanatsy to have both sexes' thing in the blog post, my guess is either it's some obscure and butchered reference to some sort of gender issue, or it's 'bisexual in the closet', and so you're hiding by staying as far from either sex as you can. Joy Davidson's comment struck me as ironic, since she thinks that a physiological (and therefore entirely natural) cause of 'shutting down' sexuality is somehow wrong. She may have half an iota of a point with the 'self-fulfilling prophesy,' but if the asexual doesn't have a problem without sex why does she want them to not rule it out so much?

I've rambled on enough now.

[annwyl_cariad]

As others have said, I'm pretty sure it's all about the money. See, if people start to realize that not wanting sex is okay, ba-da-boom, sexperts are losing out on a LOT of paying clients. A sexpert's entire job is to take people who have an issue with sex and make them like sex again. And most therapists are paid by the hour. It would take a lot of hours to turn an asexual into a sexual, don't you think? And that's a lot of money for the sexpert. Also, you don't go into sex therapy without thinking sex is pretty damn cool. Sex therapists are paid to make people's sex lives better and make them like sex more. The idea of people not wanting sex at all and being happy with that is probably so far outside their realm of both personal and professional experience that they just refuse to believe it even exists.

Maybe I'm just being unreasonably cynical, but that's annwyl_cariad for ya.

The "omnipotent fantasy to have both sexes" thing completely baffled me. I'm like you, I feel like it's SO far off that I have no idea how to even respond to it.

I actually can see one way that people might find asexuality threatening: to sexuals married to asexuals that don't realize they are ace. If suddenly asexuality is a real thing that is okay and accepted, the sexuals' sex lives with their spouses might suffer, because the asexual doesn't feel the need to pressure themselves to be sexual anymore. For the record, I'm not saying it makes sense, just that some people might find it threatening.

Regarding asexophobia: I've been called a tease numerous times for, how shall I put this, advertising goods that aren't for sale? Which basically means that I don't dress in a burlap sack, instead choosing to accentuate my better features through clothing. Yes, sexuals might be called out on this as well, but when they're not on the market, it typically means they've been claimed already, i.e., they have a partner. So they are still "on the market" to someone, if that makes sense.

I'll shut up now.

[Brienne]

I don't hold anything against the sexperts. Academia has a tendency to be very conservative. New ideas often take decades to become accepted, and proposing radical new ideas could damage one's professional reputation if they turn out to be incorrect. The concept of asexuality is new, and hasn't been studied much yet. I think over time, as the concept of human asexuality becomes more well known, and experts research the issue more, it will slowly start to become accepted and treated as a legitimate issue. These things take time, and I look forward to seeing asexuality work its way into the social and academic mainstream.

[FelineHuggles]

I don't like sexperts. Their main and only aim is to have everyone having sex. I bet you there are no asexual sexperts out there. Just because they are called 'sexperts' doesn't mean that they HAVE to promote sex.

[~Acer~]

Someone said something once that I'm going to say here- I think "sexperts" have experience only of people with asexuality/low sex drive going to them thinking they are broken and wanting "fixing" and those who have complications from this because of a sexual partner. The sexpert uses this as an example to back up their thoughts that EVERYONE with asexuality/low sex drive has issues, maybe not with an intention to offend, but because of their personal experience and interaction being only with those who have problems with asexuality/low sex drive.