What if we don't exist after all?

[Raisin]

It's been mentioned (and rightfully lamented) many times that there has been very, very little research done on the topic of asexuality as a sexual orientation. We all clamor for it because it will give us answers as well as visibility/validation in academic circles.

But...I have this terrible and perhaps irrational fear that, when researchers start to investigate asexuality, they will not be able to find any evidence that it actually exists. I know that studies have shown an actual, physical difference between the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual men, which lends some validity to the idea of homosexuality as something that is a part of your identity since birth, as opposed to a choice you make for yourself. What if extensive scientific and medical research shows absolutely no differences in brain structure/hormone levels/whatever else? What if they are able to prove that we really are all repressing our sex drives? Or what if it turns out we have some crazy disease or disorder, one of the symptoms of which is lack of a sex drive?

I know that it would be silly to define yourself based on how a scientist classifies you, but I know we've all worked hard (in our own little ways) to make sure that asexuality is acknowledged and accepted as a legitimate orientation. My personal label will never change, as I am convinced that I am a perfectly happy, functioning asexual, but it's still in the back of my mind. I feel like it would be easier for people to accept us if they know that there is scientific data backing up our claims. I would never volunteer to participate in a research study, because I'm just too afraid of what the results would say about me, or about asexuality in general.

So...thoughts? Hopefully someone will disagree with me and reassure me that I'm just being silly...:)

[The Pixel Monk]

So what? :) We'll all still be who we are. We'll all still have a unifying characteristic to rally behind. We just won't be an official club. ;)

[endplusone]

I was thinking about this last night while lying in bed. To be honest, I have no idea, and I think it would be a bit too upsetting to pursue that and find out that it is just a chemical imbalance that has been recognized by a group of people as fine since it causes no distress. I guess one could always argue that perhaps human sexuality is so complex that there is more to orientation than hormones and brain make-up, and asexuality is a lot deeper than comprehensible at this point.

Just for interest's sake, has there been any studies of asexuals with regards to hormone levels? Even so, is it the orientation affecting the development of the hormones or vice versa? What if an asexual were put on medication that suddenly gave them a feeling of sexual attraction, wouldn't that make it different from an orientation? Though I suppose it would be difficult to differentiate between boosting the urge to have sex and actually being attracted to the person enough to want sex.

[BleedingThrough]

I bet gay/lesbians used to wonder about this too. But thankfully doctors know they really were born that way. I hope doctors find out that we were born this way too.

[BaronTheCat]

I get my hormones artificially, so I know the level is as high as it should be.

[Hallucigenia]

I know that studies have shown an actual, physical difference between the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual men, which lends some validity to the idea of homosexuality as something that is a part of your identity since birth, as opposed to a choice you make for yourself.

Slight nitpick here. Your brain is not fixed in a single position at birth; it continues to grow and change. For example, London cabbies have bigger hippocampi (the part of your brain that deals with spatial memory) than other people due to their practice navigating the complex layout of London streets; the longer a person has been a cabbie, the bigger the hippocampus. But it would be very strange to say that being a London cabbie has been part of your identity since birth!

Regardless, the studies of homosexual men's brains do provide solid evidence that there's something going on in there that's quite different from what goes on with heterosexual men. That is to say, homosexual men aren't simply degenerate or deluded heterosexuals (and vice versa). It would be quite nice to be able to say the same thing (with scientific backing) about asexuality.

Perhaps the real question you asked is outside my privileges to answer, since I'm not asexual. But let's picture a world where scientists have done exhaustive tests and found no consistent differences in brain structure and hormone levels. Does that mean they've "proven" that you're all repressed sexuals? I would be inclined not to think so. All that has happened is that they've failed to prove you aren't. But we don't know nearly everything about the inner workings of human sexuality yet. There isn't a brain structure that you can point to and say "Look! A repression synapse! That person is repressed!" (or whatever).

So there would still be a lot of room to say "We have no idea what's going on with you, but you seem to be having happy sexless lives, so go to it!"

[matt1285]

There was me wondering if you were talking about us not being real but all dead (Matrix style!)

Anywho, interesting theory this. A lot of people currently argue it doesn't exist, so the odds aren't looking good. It is somewhat concerning though to think that if asexuality was proven to be non-existent we would just be strange hetrosexuals......

Nah, I think I perfer the asexuality theory - just don't get the scientists on it!

[BaronTheCat]

Slight nitpick here. Your brain is not fixed in a single position at birth; it continues to grow and change. For example, London cabbies have bigger hippocampi (the part of your brain that deals with spatial memory) than other people due to their practice navigating the complex layout of London streets; the longer a person has been a cabbie, the bigger the hippocampus. But it would be very strange to say that being a London cabbie has been part of your identity since birth!

Wow! Cool :lol:

[DaniTheGirl]

Slight nitpick here. Your brain is not fixed in a single position at birth; it continues to grow and change. For example, London cabbies have bigger hippocampi (the part of your brain that deals with spatial memory) than other people due to their practice navigating the complex layout of London streets; the longer a person has been a cabbie, the bigger the hippocampus. But it would be very strange to say that being a London cabbie has been part of your identity since birth!

Wow! Cool :lol:

Wow! Double plus cool!

Also, I was sitting in my Anthro class and something my Prof. said made me think of this exact issue, oddly enough.

He was talking about Elaborating Key Symbols (the work of a Sherry Ortner, if you're interested). Obviously, in every culture there is a set of symbols by which the participants make sense of the world, and obviously these are very different between cultures. An Elaborating Key Symbol is a symbol by which members of a culture make sense of all the other symbols (It's only my first Anthro class, forgive me if I'm imprecise).

In the west (He's specifically talking about the US here) our Key symbol seems to be biology; take how we view kinship. A kid can be adopted, nurtured and raised by a loving family, and yet inevitably s/he will go looking for their "real" family. In the US, bio-mom is more "real" than nurture-mom. This is very different from systems of reciprocity, specifically those cultures in Melanesia.

Anyway, on to Asexuality. As with homosexuality, we want so desperately for these orientations to be "real" that we are searching for the "gay gene" or the "asexual brain pattern" or whatever. If something can prove that scientifically, biologically, that we are different then the world will accept us as legitimate. I don't see the US's Elaborating Key Symbol changing anytime soon, but I still think that we can consider ourselves legitimate without biological affirmation.

[Raisin]

I know that studies have shown an actual, physical difference between the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual men, which lends some validity to the idea of homosexuality as something that is a part of your identity since birth, as opposed to a choice you make for yourself.

Slight nitpick here. Your brain is not fixed in a single position at birth; it continues to grow and change. For example, London cabbies have bigger hippocampi (the part of your brain that deals with spatial memory) than other people due to their practice navigating the complex layout of London streets; the longer a person has been a cabbie, the bigger the hippocampus. But it would be very strange to say that being a London cabbie has been part of your identity since birth!

Regardless, the studies of homosexual men's brains do provide solid evidence that there's something going on in there that's quite different from what goes on with heterosexual men. That is to say, homosexual men aren't simply degenerate or deluded heterosexuals (and vice versa). It would be quite nice to be able to say the same thing (with scientific backing) about asexuality.

Yeah, I guess I didn't word that very well. I just know there's a big debate about whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, or whether it has a more biological basis. And I totally agree with everything you said in the second paragraph.

[Raisin]

Anyway, on to Asexuality. As with homosexuality, we want so desperately for these orientations to be "real" that we are searching for the "gay gene" or the "asexual brain pattern" or whatever. If something can prove that scientifically, biologically, that we are different then the world will accept us as legitimate. I don't see the US's Elaborating Key Symbol changing anytime soon, but I still think that we can consider ourselves legitimate without biological affirmation.

Ooh, this Key Symbol stuff sounds interesting. And I totally agree that we can still consider ourselves legitimate. I just feel like, if we want to be recognized by the rest of society (which some people may argue we don't really want/need after all), then we may have to play into our culture's Key Symbol by backing ourselves up with scientific evidence. *shrug*

[DaniTheGirl]

Ooh, this Key Symbol stuff sounds interesting. And I totally agree that we can still consider ourselves legitimate. I just feel like, if we want to be recognized by the rest of society (which some people may argue we don't really want/need after all), then we may have to play into our culture's Key Symbol by backing ourselves up with scientific evidence. *shrug*

I agree with you there. I'm not sure who needs the paradigm shift here, "them" or "us" ^^

[andrew_w]

I think that there are definite differences in brain structure of at least some asexuals (especially for driveless asexuals - how else do you explain normal hormone levels and no trace of drive?), but so what if there are none? Asexuality is valid no matter what the cause (and there are almost certainly many, due to the fact that asexuals are so widely varied). If it doesn't cause someone distress in and of itself, or cause them to harm others, it's not a disorder.

[reverse_thrust]

Let us not forget that in order to be classified as a disorder it must be interfering with one's ability to lead an enjoyable lifestyle. Most of us are not unhappy with our lack of desire for sex, so what's the problem?

Disorders are such a superficial thing, a labeled designation that points out the obvious: You are different, and, usually, you suffer because other people won't take the time to accommodate you. Society isn't kind to people who differ from the norm, as even homosexuality was designated as a disorder until relatively recently.

I wouldn't be too concerned. Many people with "disorders" are happy and comfortable with themselves amongst other people with these "disorders." Stick a deaf person in a community of obnoxious individuals whose only use of gesticulation is the middle finger and of course he or she will suffer. Same goes for a liberal atheist in a conservative church, a gay person in a homophobic southern community, etc.. Why do you think communities are often centered around certain ethnic groups and lifestyles? People are more comfortable with others similar to themselves, and, for one to live comfortably outside of this circle of comfort, society usually needs to accommodate you.

Even if there is nothing "wrong" with us and we are all just repressed, so what? "Straight edge" people are more comfortable with other "straight edge" individuals, smokers with other smokers, blah blah blah. People choose to participate (and refrain from participating) in all sorts of activities every day. If we are simply "choosing" not to have sex, does it matter? Does this make it any less valid? Granted, we may be naturally sexual, but if we aren't suffering in the least because of it, it shouldn't matter.

[Angelica Soprano]

Exactly! I'm a smoking asexual atheist living with a God-worshiping non-smoking bunch of breeders! :(

[cadmiumblimp]

Slight nitpick here. Your brain is not fixed in a single position at birth; it continues to grow and change. For example, London cabbies have bigger hippocampi (the part of your brain that deals with spatial memory) than other people due to their practice navigating the complex layout of London streets; the longer a person has been a cabbie, the bigger the hippocampus. But it would be very strange to say that being a London cabbie has been part of your identity since birth!

Yeah, so two points need to be made here -- 1) the mental affects the physical and vice versa and 2) it is possible that the bigger hippocampi the London cabbies have may have been there from birth (we don't really know, do we?), giving them the mental abilities that come in handy as a cabbie. People with other jobs that deal also deal with spatial memory would also likely have larger hippocami, so the question is really whether the job causes them to have the bigger hippocampus or if the larger hippocampus causes them to choose jobs that utilize those the skills the hippocampus provides.

[Hallucigenia]

Slight nitpick here. Your brain is not fixed in a single position at birth; it continues to grow and change. For example, London cabbies have bigger hippocampi (the part of your brain that deals with spatial memory) than other people due to their practice navigating the complex layout of London streets; the longer a person has been a cabbie, the bigger the hippocampus. But it would be very strange to say that being a London cabbie has been part of your identity since birth!

Yeah, so two points need to be made here -- 1) the mental affects the physical and vice versa and 2) it is possible that the bigger hippocampi the London cabbies have may have been there from birth (we don't really know, do we?), giving them the mental abilities that come in handy as a cabbie. People with other jobs that deal also deal with spatial memory would also likely have larger hippocami, so the question is really whether the job causes them to have the bigger hippocampus or if the larger hippocampus causes them to choose jobs that utilize those the skills the hippocampus provides.

Yes, it's quite possible - which is why they made sure to measure the correlation between hippocampus size and the length of time the person had been a cabbie. Of course, there could be some obscure explanation for that too, and obviously a person could have a predisposition to hippocampus growth that leads them into a job that exploits the predisposition to hippocampus growth...

Very complicated, isn't it? But yes, the mental affects the physical and vice versa.

[rotifer]

Does any one exist?

Maybe this is all a dream?

[Angelica Soprano]

Yeah, I've been here before, but I can't goddam remember it! ;)

[Lord Happy Toast]

One scientist (LeVay), did claim to have found brain differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals but there are a lot of problems with it. To begin with, it has never been replicated. Secondly, there is a problem with knowing who was gay and who wasn't. The brains were, obviously, from dead people so he couldn't exactly ask them. He used brains of people who had died of AIDS. If they said that they had ever had sex with a man, they were gay. If they said otherwise (for example, people who contracted it via shared needles in drug use), they were straight. But given stigma about homosexuality and AIDS at the time, it is quite likely people may have lied.

Secondly, I think we all need to understand that there is no such thing as sexual repression. The idea comes from Freud, and modern psychology doesn't like him because his ideas generally are not testable and thus are not scientific. There is such a thing as denial. It is possible to have sexual desires and be in denial about them for some reason or other. So if that's what we mean by "sexually repressed," we're talking about something real. Otherwise, we've left the scientifically meaningful which means that scientist won't (at least they better not be) finding otherwise.

Scientists may find that there is no such thing as asexuality, but they may well find that there is no such thing as heterosexuality either. Categories about sexual orientation are culturally constructed categories (symbols, as someone else said). They might also be scientifically meaningful categories that are useful not only in our culture, but in lots of others too, but they might not. For example, asking if someone in some tribe in the Amazon is a republican or a democrat doesn't make any sense. On the other hand, asking if they have A,B,AB, or O blood type, even if their culture doesn't believe in these, is a scientifically meaningful question. Which of these sorts sexual orientation should be considered is an open question and there are people supporting both.

Any research on asexuality won't prove that it does or does not exist. Generally, research on it will have to begin with the assumption that it does exist. As long as we know that we don't experience sexual attraction (or only a very, very small amount), I think we can have reasonable confidence that we don't experience sexual attraction. If we find that there are a lot of other people who don't experience sexual attraction, many of whom are psychologically healthy, then we can have reasonable confidence that there are psychologically healthy asexuals.

That said, I do have quite a bit of curiousity about what scientists will find, but I think it will probably be a decade or two at least before we know much. The same can be said of other sexual orientations--very little is known about what causes them.

[ghosts]

Slight nitpick here. Your brain is not fixed in a single position at birth; it continues to grow and change. For example, London cabbies have bigger hippocampi (the part of your brain that deals with spatial memory) than other people due to their practice navigating the complex layout of London streets; the longer a person has been a cabbie, the bigger the hippocampus. But it would be very strange to say that being a London cabbie has been part of your identity since birth!

Have you been taking psych classes, by any chance? :)

[spica]

I once was told by a lesbian that she doesn't want scientists to figure out what makes her gay, because the minute it can be defined scientifically there's the chance of people trying to find a "cure." Just like now they're talking about parents being able to pick the gender of their children, who knows what would happen if people could make 'em straight? It makes me wonder if asexuality would then be given the same treatment?

So I don't know if I really want a doctor to tell me what made me this way. I think the fact that we're all here is proof enough. :)

Also, I heard once that juggling can increase the size of your brain, even once you've become an adult! So for those of us who can't become cabbies in London, there is still hope!

[natsume]

What if love between sexuals is just a complex rationalization and extension of the desire for sexual intercourse/reproduction?

What if the only reason over 90% of the world is comprised of practicing straight sexuals is because it is what we were all taught from the crib?

What if constantly denying your own existence is only a result of the fact that being a straight sexual is what you were taught, raised on, still have shoved down your throat every day?

What if homosexuals had also just thrown up their arms and said 'well I guess the straight sexual majority is telling us we aren't legitimate people'?

[Trogdor]

Just because there's a biological explanation for something, doesn't mean it's any less real, or any less meaningful. After all, every single thought had by every single person in the world about any topic whatsoever is the product of an exceptionally complex biochemical machine called the brain. After all, sexuals are definately sexual becuase of biology, but does this stop them from referring to sex as a "beautiful thing"? The beuatiful, the amazing thing about consciousness is that we build notions like honor, virtue, right and wrong, and the appreciation of beauty out of a very large, very complex (ridiculously large! Ridiculously complex!) collection of inanimate automatons. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts- because the whole is created from the relationships between the parts, not the parts themselves, and in the human brain those relationships create an interconnected web of such staggering intricacy and wonder that modern science has only penetrated the thinnest surface of its secrets. This is the root of the religious objection to evolution- they feel it trivializes humanity. But what they don't understand- what almost nobody understands, because the language it is spoken in is so obscure- is that there is far more wonder in the scientific worldview than there ever could be in the religious one. Existence itself is so damn awesome as to be worthy of worship, and our brains are one of the finest fractal nuggets contained in Existence.

Returning to Earth to answer the question at hand: if there is a biological explanation for homosexuality then there is one for asexuality too. That's because you cannot just consider cognitive science or neurology, but evolution as well. There is no viable reason why evolution would create non-reproducing homosexuals but not equally non-reproducing asexuals. It could be proposed that homosexuality is just the misapplication of a sex drive that everyone has; but Nature is very skilled at making creatures recognize who they are supposed to mate with, so this explanation does not hold water. If Nature had good reason for making homosexuals then she had good reason for making asexuals as well.

[Nonz16]

in defense of scientists: they're generally sexual and sexuals don't really understand us and why should they? it's not as though we understand them...

[Wolf X Omega]

Then we don't, That doesn't change who we are.