Jump to content

What counts as sexual desire?


Recommended Posts

That discussion can never resolve because 'desire' is a feeling and feelings are subjective, and however many words are thrown at them, there'll always be uncertainty about its ultimate meaning. So in practice, there's no working definition, especially since AVEN has redefined 'desire' from the common usage.

Given this, talking about 'desire' is only ever going to cloud the issue. Same with attraction. Same with libido. So using them is never going to clarify anything.

More importantly, they all have massive overlaps with how sexuals feel, so they don't actually differentiate sexuality and asexuality.

"Do you want to have sex for sexual pleasure, ever? Do you want to have it for emotional pleasure (ie you enjoy the intimacy) ever?" Yes: sexual. No: probably asexual. Just seems really straight forward to me. I have *never* met a sexual person who would say "no, never" ..so I don't see the "massive overlap"?

"Could you happily go without partnered sex for the rest of your life and never miss it, and never desire it for sexual and/or emotional pleasure, ever?" Asexual = hell yeah, I'd be happiest that way. Sexual = well, no..probably not totally happily, there would be times I'd miss sex. Again, I don't see the overlap.

Whereas yes, there are many massive overlaps with any sexual attraction definition.

But I've not heard of these tests - what are they?

They do blood tests and things to check your hormones. People with chronically low levels of "sex hormones" (ie low libido) can get injections etc of the hormones they are lacking to treat the issue (that's super basic, there's a lot more too it than that, but it's a common issue that sexuals face, that doctors can diagnose and treat relatively successfully)

There were some really interesting studies done in non-human animals to prove the existence of innate asexuality, where they messed around with the animals hormone levels and things (and chemically castrated some of the sex-interested animals). Testing for hormone levels is pretty straight forward as far as I know. But yeah if you're asexual, no matter how much "sex hormones" they inject you with (you still won't desire partnered sex (as they proved in the asexual non-human animals by injecting them with sex high levels of hormones )

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can tell the difference between someone with a chronically low libido and an asexual with a healthy libido, medically (through tests etc)

There are some people who identify as nonlibidoists though. So, are you saying they have a hormonal imbalance? ;) If I remeber correctly, a few of them posted about getting their hormones checked and the results came back normal...

Non-libidoist means ''no libido'' which yes, is technically a hormone imbalance. It sounds to me like the people you are referring to were either (as usual on AVEN) using the term nonlibidoist incorrectly, or you are remembering incorrectly.

Non-libidoist in an asexual means: no desire to masturbate or orgasm (as opposed to an ace with a libido, who does masturbate) Non-libidoist aces also have no innate desire for partnered sexual contact. You get sexual people with ''no libido'' as well, but the difference is, the sexual will usually feel distress, as they still innately desire a partnered sexual connection but their body won't react to that in the way they need. Whereas for an ace, they see no issue as they don't want sex anyway.

Also, being a non-libidoist is different from being someone who does get aroused enough to want to orgasm, but refuses to because they disagree with masturbation or whatever. A non-libidoist literally just doesn't get the ''urge'' and that's it.

Libido is made of hormones, so if you don't have a libido, yeah there is a hormone imbalance going on. There's nothing wrong with that though if it doesn't cause the person distress (as long as it's not a serious undiagnosed health-issue that needs to be treated that is causing the imbalance)

(I am possibly going to cop some heat from this post but meh)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Non-libidoist means ''no libido'' which yes, is technically a hormone imbalance

No libido just means no drive to do anything sexual. It could be from any cause - depression, for example. Check the DeadBedrooms reddit - there are lots of reports of people with no libido who've had perfectly normal testosterone levels, for example.

but the difference is, the sexual will usually feel distress, as they still innately desire a partnered sexual connection but their body won't react to that in the way they need

Not necessarily true at all. It's possible to not be distressed by your lack of libido.

Libido is made of hormones

No, libido is Freud's name for the sexual impulse. No more than that.

(I am possibly going to cop some heat from this post but meh)

Indeed, as it's a bunch of unevidenced logical fallacies. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if someone has no libido (or close to none), it's pretty much impossible to desire partnered sex even if they're not asexual. (Which is quite possibly my case).

So, I'd say the difference between people with low libido and asexuals (= those who don't desire partnered sex) isn't as significant as you think.

The reason (many. not all, but many) sexual people suffer due to libido issues is because innately, they still desire that partnered sexual connection, but their body just won't react in the way they need it to for them to be able to actively desire and enjoy sex. Which is why pharmaceutical companies make billions off drugs used to treat libido issues. Why would anyone bother seeking treatment, if they were 'practically asexual' once they lose their libido? they wouldn't. But if you've ever read, for example, reviews for SSRI's online (there are millions) you will see many, many sexual people saying the drugs just aren't worth it, because they killed their libido, and even if one's depression is being treated, life still isn't worth living without sex (and things to that effect) ..They still (in many cases) have an innate, fundamental, underlying desire for that partnered sexual connection, even if their body is absolutely incapable of physically wanting that.. and this often causes them to be miserable and yes, to seek treatment.

Whereas an asexual just doesn't have that underlying desire, so if they have low-no libido, they just won't care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Non-libidoist means ''no libido'' which yes, is technically a hormone imbalance

No libido just means no drive to do anything sexual. It could be from any cause - depression, for example. Check the DeadBedrooms reddit - there are lots of reports of people with no libido who've had perfectly normal testosterone levels, for example.

but the difference is, the sexual will usually feel distress, as they still innately desire a partnered sexual connection but their body won't react to that in the way they need

Not necessarily true at all. It's possible to not be distressed by your lack of libido.

Libido is made of hormones

No, libido is Freud's name for the sexual impulse. No more than that.

(I am possibly going to cop some heat from this post but meh)

Indeed, as it's a bunch of unevidenced logical fallacies. :)

No libido just means no drive to do anything sexual. It could be from any cause - depression, for example. Check the DeadBedrooms reddit - there are lots of reports of people with no libido who've had perfectly normal testosterone levels, for example.

Depression/stress/etc directly affect the hormones, causing imbalances. You can have enough of one hormone but not enough or too much of another, which throws everything out.

Not necessarily true at all. It's possible to not be distressed by your lack of libido.

That's why I always say ''usually'' ''often'' ''many''. I never ''all sexual people are distressed by lack of libido''.. because there are sexual people who are not distressed by it. However, this doesn't automatically make them asexual. No asexual is distressed by their low libido levels if they just don't innately want sex. Many sexual people are distressed by it, for varying reasons, or pharmaceutical companies wouldn't make billions from libido treatments (because many people want to fix the issue)

No, libido is Freud's name for the sexual impulse. No more than that.

Hormonal and neurobiological basis of sexual drive

In men and women alike, libido is directly linked to androgen hormones (namely testosterone). As men have approximately 40 times as much testosterone as women, they are thought to have a more intense sexual drive; however, more aggressive behavior is demonstrated as well. Such disparity in testosterone levels also exists in other mammals, hence most species show a bias towards more pronounced sexual drive and aggression of males when compared to females.

The exact role of peptides in sexual drive and arousal is still not certain, partly because of their many roles and sites of action. Still, oxytocin – a neuropeptide also dubbed “bonding hormone” – is important in both sexual and parental behavior. Besides regulating for sexual drive, complex oxytocin neural pathways control penile erection and sexual motivation in general.

Dopamine plays a strong role in libido and motivation. This hormone and neurotransmitter is one of the key players in the human body. Steroid hormones set the stage for increased dopamine synthesis and its release during periods of enhanced sexual responding, resulting in an increased sexual drive.

http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Libido.aspx

Too much alcohol, stress, depression, being overweight, grief, all these things can affect libido (sexual motivation) But these things throw the hormones in the body out of balance (because the brain directly controls hormone production as does the state of physical health in the body) ...So yeah, they cause the hormones to be out of balance.. hence, low libido.

Indeed, as it's a bunch of unevidenced logical fallacies :)

.....Thanks for that. Really helpful to this discussion right now, insulting me. Cheers. I hope you feel good about yourself. I just don't see why some people feel the need to stoop so low. But yeah, whatever blows your skirts up Tele.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Cherry picking much? At least read the sources you're trying to use:

Libido was conceived as ultimately biological in origin, but today it is influenced by a
plethora of developmental, psychosocial and cultural factors. 

That is, not just hormonal.

That's why I always say ''usually'' ''often'' ''many''.

You can either hedge with 'usually' or draw universal definitions, not both.

Thanks for that. Really helpful to this discussion right now, insulting me. Cheers. I hope you feel good about yourself. I just don't see why some people feel the need to stoop so low. But yeah, whatever blows your skirts up Tele.

No, I was pointing out your arguments were weak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Non-libidoist means ''no libido'' which yes, is technically a hormone imbalance

No libido just means no drive to do anything sexual. It could be from any cause - depression, for example. Check the DeadBedrooms reddit - there are lots of reports of people with no libido who've had perfectly normal testosterone levels, for example.

but the difference is, the sexual will usually feel distress, as they still innately desire a partnered sexual connection but their body won't react to that in the way they need

Not necessarily true at all. It's possible to not be distressed by your lack of libido.

Libido is made of hormones

No, libido is Freud's name for the sexual impulse. No more than that.

(I am possibly going to cop some heat from this post but meh)

Indeed, as it's a bunch of unevidenced logical fallacies. :)

No libido just means no drive to do anything sexual. It could be from any cause - depression, for example. Check the DeadBedrooms reddit - there are lots of reports of people with no libido who've had perfectly normal testosterone levels, for example.

Depression/stress/etc directly affect the hormones, causing imbalances. You can have enough of one hormone but not enough or too much of another, which throws everything out.

What about those of us with no libido who have had the hormonal blood tests and nothing is out of whack, we just lack the urge to do anything sexual still? Are we still just ill and need treatment even though our doctors don't agree with you? (For example, my mom has no urges and has to have her hormones tested often for a medical thing, in case something goes out of whack due to something the doctors did to her, but so far everything is 100% normal)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those of us with no libido who have had the hormonal blood tests and nothing is out of whack, we just lack the urge to do anything sexual still? Are we still just ill and need treatment even though our doctors don't agree with you?

Well I already said, it's only an issue if the person has an issue with it? If you don't have an issue then, why would you need to treat it?

Why do you have ''no libido'' (ie don't experience arousal or the need to orgasm or anything) out of interest, if you have healthy levels of estrogen and testosterone etc in your body? Did your doctor give you a reason? Maybe some people just naturally don't react to the hormones in their bodies? like some people feel anger but don't have an ''urge'' yell and scream? (lame comparison but I'm tired) ..I also know some people repress libido response as a result of past trauma or for other reasons (religious fear as a result of being punished for masturbating as a child because ''god doesn't like it'' and yeah, all sorts of things can cause it) but meh, again, I said if it's not an issue to you and there isn't a medical condition causing it that needs to be treated (ie diabetes or whatever) then... obviously no treatment is necessary or warranted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, doctors don't give a reason. They test your hormones and tell you if anything is wrong. Some people just ... aren't into sexual stuff... just like some people just aren't into sex. I don't believe there is an "official" reason.

"Medically tested libido" as in, arousal response to stimuli which they usually test when testing libidos, most non-libiodists would still rate as having one... cause yeah stimulate us and our body will respond with lubrication/increased blood flow and whatever else is "normal". But, as in, no desires/impulses to do anything sexual, you can have perfectly normal hormone levels and still not ever masturbate / have sex and have no issue whatsoever cause you just don't desire it. There is no drive to do any of that.

(And, I mean I guess I could say "Yeah I am a libidoist, I just don't ever desire anything sexual, including masturbation or anything like that, I just can get wet when you stimulate me" if I wanted to be 100% scientifically accurate. But, that would not make any sense to people who use the more traditional libido = sex drive definition)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those of us with no libido who have had the hormonal blood tests and nothing is out of whack, we just lack the urge to do anything sexual still?

No, doctors don't give a reason. They test your hormones and tell you if anything is wrong. Some people just ... aren't into sexual stuff... just like some people just aren't into sex. I don't believe there is an "official" reason.

"Medically tested libido" as in, arousal response to stimuli which they usually test when testing libidos, most non-libiodists would still rate as having one... cause yeah stimulate us and our body will respond with lubrication/increased blood flow and whatever else is "normal". But, as in, no desires/impulses to do anything sexual, you can have perfectly normal hormone levels and still not ever masturbate / have sex and have no issue whatsoever cause you just don't desire it. There is no drive to do any of that.

Yeah well as someone with a high libido, I certainly don't get lubricated or increased bloodflow when I am stimulated. Is that really anything to do with libido, or just a physiological response some people get and some people don't get (regardless of libido levels)

And so pretty much what you're saying is the only difference between a high-libido ace and a non-libido ace isn't the libido (because, so many of you have ''healthy libido hormones'' intact) you just aren't experiencing something physiologically in reaction to those very healthy sexual hormone levels.

Because for me, the ONLY thing that makes me experience arousal is those hormones, and I can only get rid of arousal through masturbation. So there is no difference between you and I hormonally, it's something else (because you don't experience that sae need to orgasm) So now despite what doctors and numerous scientific studies say, hormones have nothing at all to do with libido, so we may as well stop treating men and women who are having libido issues, with the hormones they are lacking, which somehow increases their libidos and makes them want sex again.

Or maybe it's just a physiological difference between you and I and.. nothing to do with libido at all

And you appear to experience a reaction to stimulation, which I don't, so yeah.. there's that too. Definitely something physiological.

We both have very healthy libidos apparently though, according to your doctor and mine.

So now many ''nonlib'' aces are people who don't get ''sexual urges'' but do have very healthy libidos according to bloodwork done by doctors. Just another instance of AVEN misusing labels then I guess. You are ''non-urge'' aces, not ''non-lib'' aces at all if you actually have a healthy libido according to your doc,

Yep, I need a break from AVEN.

Whoosh.

Nice to see you're making an effort, as usual. Oh wait..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

As I've said before, trying to reduce processes in the brain to hormones is like trying to reduce processes in a CPU to electrons. They're a messenger substance. They're used by the brain to send messages. You can change the amount of available messenger substances and hope it "fixes" something about the way your brain sends messages. But ultimately, it's the messages your brain sends and the processes these messages trigger that count, not the messenger substance in and of itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those of us with no libido who have had the hormonal blood tests and nothing is out of whack, we just lack the urge to do anything sexual still?

No, doctors don't give a reason. They test your hormones and tell you if anything is wrong. Some people just ... aren't into sexual stuff... just like some people just aren't into sex. I don't believe there is an "official" reason.

"Medically tested libido" as in, arousal response to stimuli which they usually test when testing libidos, most non-libiodists would still rate as having one... cause yeah stimulate us and our body will respond with lubrication/increased blood flow and whatever else is "normal". But, as in, no desires/impulses to do anything sexual, you can have perfectly normal hormone levels and still not ever masturbate / have sex and have no issue whatsoever cause you just don't desire it. There is no drive to do any of that.

Yeah well as someone with a high libido, I certainly don't get lubricated or increased bloodflow when I am stimulated. Is that really anything to do with libido, or just a physiological response some people get and some people don't get (regardless of libido levels)

And so pretty much what you're saying is the only difference between a high-libido ace and a non-libido ace isn't the libido (because, so many of you have ''healthy libido hormones'' intact) you just aren't experiencing something physiologically in reaction to those very healthy sexual hormone levels.

Because for me, the ONLY thing that makes me experience arousal is those hormones, and I can only get rid of arousal through masturbation. So there is no difference between you and I hormonally, it's something else (because you don't experience that sae need to orgasm) So now despite what doctors and numerous scientific studies say, hormones have nothing at all to do with libido, so we may as well stop treating men and women who are having libido issues, with the hormones they are lacking, which somehow increases their libidos and makes them want sex again.

Or maybe it's just a physiological difference between you and I and.. nothing to do with libido at all

And you appear to experience a reaction to stimulation, which I don't, so yeah.. there's that too. Definitely something physiological.

We both have very healthy libidos apparently though, according to your doctor and mine.

So now many ''nonlib'' aces are people who don't get ''sexual urges'' but do have very healthy libidos according to bloodwork done by doctors. Just another instance of AVEN misusing labels then I guess. You are ''non-urge'' aces, not ''non-lib'' aces at all if you actually have a healthy libido according to your doc,

Yep, I need a break from AVEN.

So, you would say someone who gets wet from being touched should say they have a healthy libido, because they have normal hormone levels... even if they lack a sex drive 100%?

... cause, no medical documentation I have ever read would agree with that statement.

WebMD:

"No one thing causes low libido. So it’s crucial to talk to your doctor if you're worried your sex drive has dropped.

Once he figures out the causes, he can tell you the best course of action, or refer you to another doctor who can."

Everyday health article, reviewed by a PhD who graduated Johns Hopkins:

"As many as 43 percent of women and 31 percent of men have experienced sexual dysfunction, and one of the most common problems is low libido, or a low sex drive.

Missing the spark that makes you want to enjoy sexual activity is a prevalent type of sexual dysfunction, but it is also one of the trickiest to solve.

For women, low desire is one of the most common sexual issues, and it can affect you in many ways. Low desire may mean not wanting to have sex, not wanting to masturbate, having few sexual fantasies, and being worried about the lack of desire."

Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of libido

plural libidos

  1. 1: instinctual psychic energy that in psychoanalytic theory is derived from primitive biological urges (as for sexual pleasure or self-preservation) and that is expressed in conscious activity

  2. 2: sexual drive

A Layman's Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalyis :

"Defined more narrowly, libido also refers to an individual's urge to engage in sexual activity, and its antonym is the force of destruction termed mortido or destrudo."

Can you provide me any legit sources that would say lacking any drive / desire / impulses / urges to do anything sexual (including masturbation) would be counted as a happy, healthy libido? My four (and many others that I have not listed) would say I do not have a libido, as I lack any drive towards sexual activities. They tend to, in studies, measure your sex drive by your arousal response to stimuli because they think if you're aroused, you obviously want to do something about it. So, the studies assume you get wet = you want something sexual to happen. By that definition, yeah we'd have libidos cause... we're not ill and we can get wet / hard / whatever with enough stimuli. But, there are so many things wrong with considering arousal due to external stimuli to be desire for something sexual and I think you know several of them. I find it a flawed experiment.

I mean, yes, they assume you have a medical condition if you say you don't want sex. So, they assume you have a medical condition if you say you don't want sex or masturbation, even more so. But, then they run their tests and fail to find anything. Which leaves them with... referring you to a psychiatrist, or just telling you if it's not bugging you, no problem since there is no physical cause. *shrug* It's kinda the same as saying you don't want sex, really, in medical community responses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What counts as sexual desire?

Do you want to have sex with other people for sexual and/or emotional pleasure, ever? ..Wanting to have sex with someone else for sexual and/or emotional pleasure is sexual desire.

People keep trying to say that's just too hard to understand, not easy to comprehend, too confusing, but seriously, how much more basic does it get?

I also notice the people who keep going on about how confusing it is are often either sexuals (Tele) or asexuals who say they do desire sex under certain circumstances but are asexuals because their reasons for wanting it are ''special''

Maybe you guys should make your own thread about the semantics libido and the definition of nonlib (which apparently I am now as someone who doesn't get ''wet and engorged'' when I have my crotch stimulated, lol) because regardless of how you're trying to define it, it's very clear (to people with basic comprehension skills at least, I may as well just sink to Teles level) that someone can have a ''healthy libido'', and have no desire to connect sexually with other people. Ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about those of us with no libido who have had the hormonal blood tests and nothing is out of whack, we just lack the urge to do anything sexual still? Are we still just ill and need treatment even though our doctors don't agree with you?

A good doctor should know that hormone imbalance is just on cause of a low libido, so they should either look deeper or refer their patient to a specialist. Lack of libido can be the result of many things. Had I stopped at the "no hormone imbalance", I never would have figured what caused mine...

It can be caused by many things, such as medications, stress, depression, other medical conditions, etc. However, I was only addressing the hormone thing.

If it is an issue, or might be a symptom of a serious medical condition, of course discuss with your doctor. For some, it's a life-long never developed one thing though and ... doctors don't have much to say, other than maybe go see a shrink. Which, if it's not distressing, no point in that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What counts as sexual desire?

Maybe you guys should make your own thread about the semantics libido and the definition of nonlib (which apparently I am now as someone who doesn't get ''wet and engorged'' when I have my crotch stimulated, lol)

Never once said that you were non-lib, I merely stated what they do in some studies to measure libido. Please do not put words in my mouth that were never said. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perissodactyla

Sometimes I feel that a thread such as this one, where people are trying to clarify our use of language, could benefit from the participation of a sincere and skilled researcher who might operate as a kind of facilitator... trying to make the discussion lead toward some knowledge-production goals.

Once in a while with threads similar to this one, there appears to be some progress made in building a consensus understanding about accurate descriptions of sexuality and gender in relation to people's various feelings about the various ways of talking about it.

And sometimes it feels like maybe we're spinning our wheels or that AVEN itself is not able to keep up with the ongoing efforts made to fine tune an honest exploration and understanding of how to talk about these topics in a scientific way.

I don't know if it's possible to recruit a researcher or members of a research project to function as participants in helping to take a thread like this one (among many others with similar intentions to discuss and clarify concepts) towards a result that has some direct influence or impact in AVEN's mission to improve visibility and education.

I tend to feel that the AVEN staff that coordinates research could benefit from being expanded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel that a thread such as this one, where people are trying to clarify our use of language, could benefit from the participation of a sincere and skilled researcher who might operate as a kind of facilitator... trying to make the discussion lead toward some knowledge-production goals.

Once in a while with threads similar to this one, there appears to be some progress made in building a consensus understanding about accurate descriptions of sexuality and gender in relation to peoples various feelings about the various ways of talking about it.

And sometimes it feels like maybe we're spinning our wheels or that AVEN itself is not able to keep up with the ongoing efforts made to fine tune an honest exploration and understanding of how to talk about these topics in a scientific way.

I don't know if it's possible to recruit a researcher or members of a researcher project to function as a participant in helping to take a thread like this one (among many others with similar intentions to discuss and clarify concepts) towards a result that has some direct influence or impact in AVEN's mission to improve visibility and education.

I tend to feel that the AVEN staff that coordinates research could benefit from being expanded.

Really, we need more research on asexuality in general. But, I think that will just come with time. It's still considered a very new orientation. Brotto and Bogaert are the main people doing any research. I'm sure the research will expand eventually. Then, we can get more clear definitions for various things. Until then, a lot of it is going to be argued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Really, we need more research on asexuality in general. But, I think that will just come with time. It's still considered a very new orientation. Brotto and Bogaert are the main people doing any research. I'm sure the research will expand eventually. Then, we can get more clear definitions for various things. Until then, a lot of it is going to be argued.

I wonder what would happen if the results of future research showed that asexuality is not an orientation... I suspect most people on here couldn't deal with such outcome...

That would only happen if we were to entirely revise the concept of sexual orientation. If heterosexual is an orientation, then so is asexual, that much is clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Probably won't happen. Brotto and Bogaert have mortgages to pay, after all...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What counts as sexual desire?

Maybe you guys should make your own thread about the semantics libido and the definition of nonlib (which apparently I am now as someone who doesn't get ''wet and engorged'' when I have my crotch stimulated, lol)

Never once said that you were non-lib, I merely stated what they do in some studies to measure libido. Please do not put words in my mouth that were never said. :P

I was joking (and I didn't say *you* said I was nonlib.. I meant according to that "testing" method..)

And regarding the "future research" what makes asexuality an orientation (or just a legitimate expression of orienarion or lack thereof that exists in a small percent of the population) is the fact that it exists *regardless* of libido. Some people just don't innately want sex, ever, no matter how "horny" they are (or aren't) ..no matter how healthy their hormones are. Some people just have no innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure and all other factors (like semantics) are irrelevant.

And innate asexuality (preference to not have sex, ever) has been *proven* to exist in some species of non-human animals, as has innate homosexuality (preference to have sex with animals of the same gender, every time). Time and time again this has been proven (mainly in rats and rams)

I personally don't see asexuality as an orientation on a "sexuality" scale, but more an entire "scale" on its own with heteroasexuals, homoasexuals etc .. A lot of our "orientation preferences" really seem no different than sexual peoples orientation preferences (in what makes us innately "prefer" this gender/s over that gender) ..just without the "sexual" part. That's just a personal opinion though and not relevant to this convo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maelstrom_17

You say that as though 'invasive and messy' are bad things... ;)

I guess it's bad for some people, I reckon :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that as though 'invasive and messy' are bad things... ;)

I guess it's bad for some people, I reckon :D
Most definitely.
Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

guys wait up for a second before you go ranting about low-libido being "problematic"

hormone levels having anything to do with sex drive and the existence of "low libido" is entirely urban legend perpetuated to sell pharmaceutical hormone boosting drugs. studies consistently show that there is no correlation between a certain level of hormones to a certain interest in sexual release.

however, hormone boosting does increase energy and sex drive, which is why no one cares to complain about the "urban legend" as I put it. the people who actually want to have enhanced energy and sex drive are the same set of people who are diagnosed with low hormones. there is very little correlation however between hormone level and sex drive.

it is true that low libido is often a common symptom in relation to various diagnoses, such as depression. but "low libido" has no actual medical meaning, when it comes down to it, other than the observation that the same person has lower sex drive and general energy when depressed compared to when treated. essentially, the only way to declare "low libido" as a symptom is if the patient complains about their low libido - it's practically a self-fulfilling prophecy that depends on the individual's satisfaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

This.

My wife's on HRT. Improved her mood somewhat, but absolutely no effect on her libido. Obviously that's anecdotal, but it fits the wider picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...