Jump to content

Acquired Asexuality


Cobie

Recommended Posts

Considering how nebulous sexuality as a concept, you might as well argue that there is a lot more asexuals than we think and you know you cannot argue away the fact that sexuality isn't coherent as much as you would like to believe otherwise.

Maybe sexuality is vague, ill-defined, and hard to understand FOR YOU, but there are a lot of people here who have a pretty good comprehension of it (from listening to actual sexual people describe it, or even experiencing it themselves). Don't apply your own lack of comprehension about sexuality to everyone else in the entire world.

What I'm saying is, YOU can't label someone else asexual just because they lost their sex drive for whatever reason. Maybe THEY decide they want to explore the ace label, but you can't just slap it on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

celibacy is what can be "acquired"

asexuality can never be "acquired" that doesn't make any sense. to acquire is to buy or obtain an object or asset for oneself... the phrase "acquired asexuality" TBH I find rather degrading...

I found it rather degrading too. For me it's like if people started saying that men who can't get hard for their wives after a 10 year marriage have "acquired homosexuality" ..I imagine that would make homosexual men feel pretty degraded. Like people are trying to say their sexual orientation is just a medical condition that some people get. Asexuality isn't a medical condition some people get, it's not hormonal imbalances as a result of menopause or whatever, it's not something you can go out and make for yourself either. You CAN acquire celibacy, but asexuality is an innate orientation. Not something that can "just happen all of a sudden when you're 75". Asexuality isn't loss of sex drive, or sexual dysfunction. Those things are exactly what they say they are: loss of sex drive, or sexual dysfunction.. They are not things that require an orientation label to define them because the terms already used for them define them!. (Again, if that person *themselves* decides that maybe they're asexual now, that's their choice. But other people labeling them ace is what's annoying me)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how nebulous sexuality as a concept, you might as well argue that there is a lot more asexuals than we think and you know you cannot argue away the fact that sexuality isn't coherent as much as you would like to believe otherwise.

Maybe sexuality is vague, ill-defined, and hard to understand FOR YOU, but there are a lot of people here who have a pretty good comprehension of it (from listening to actual sexual people describe it, or even experiencing it themselves). Don't apply your own lack of comprehension about sexuality to everyone else in the entire world.

What I'm saying is, YOU can't label someone else asexual just because they lost their sex drive for whatever reason. Maybe THEY decide they want to explore the ace label, but you can't just slap it on them.

Right, and while you're at it, note that there are people like Telecaster (a sexual)who admits even sexuals can't even come to an agreement. Ask Telecaster yourself. I also read studies about social construction of sexuality, and even they notice definitions are not consistent. Oh, and I very much know the feeling of what I call sexual attraction before somewhere around age 16, and I still think those feelings only applies to some sexuals as sexual attraction is relative. And you and I know we do not represent every sexuals and neither your sexual peers. And yes, you can label people however you want, now treating them as such or using logics to support it is a whole nother story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'm not labelling anyone. I never have, and I've always been really clear about that. What I actually said was:

Sorry but there's a high percentage of women after 45 that don't experience sexiual attraction for anybody

My wife for one... and I can't see any difference between a post menopausal woman who has no libido or attraction to anyone, and an asexual with no libido, for all practical purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I agree that there is a difference between never being sexual and becoming non-sexual. I actually do think sexual problems are a thing separate from Asexuality. Sometimes I feel this way about the topics in the sexual forum, maybe just stress or aging can cause a partner to go from sexual to non-sexual. Like Pan said the percentage of asexuals must be way higher if we include those people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at it slightly differently. As people gather more life experience they also become more self-aware. For the majority of people societal conditioning means the default option is cis-gendered heterosexual. Many realise they don't conform to this stereotype from an early age, and identify within the LGBTQ spectrum, but still think they have to be attracted to some.

In later years some, like myself may realise that we've never been attracted to any, despite thinking we ought to.

Then there are romantic asexuals, demo's, grey's et al, who form emotional bonds, without forming a sexual attraction. The people who can have a deep loving relationship yet felt no connection in bed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not labelling anyone. I never have, and I've always been really clear about that. What I actually said was

My wife for one... and I can't see any difference between a post menopausal woman who has no libido or attraction to anyone, and an asexual with no libido, for all pra

Didn't you agreed that even sexuals does not have a census on what counts as sexual attraction or how to interpret it as well as they have no census on the naunces of sexuality. And, you're right, there is zero practical difference between an asexual who never had sexual desire and someone who end up having a untreatable loss of sexuality-related feelings. Both as far as I am concerned, both are functionally asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Didn't you agreed that even sexuals does not have a census on what counts as sexual attraction or how to interpret it as well as they have no census on the naunces of sexuality.

No, must've been someone else. I don't think anyone, sexual or asexual, can pin it down to a sentence and include all edge cases, which is what AVEN is obsessed with doing. But in general, sexuals have a better grasp on it, just as Neil Armstrong has a better grasp than me on what walking on the moon feels like.

Functionally asexual is the term I use too, specifically for my wife, but it works more widely too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

I'm not in love with the term "functionally asexual." Asexuality is an identity based on subjective thoughts and emotions. If one person claims that another person is asexual, they are speculating about what is going on in that person's mind. What is actually going on in that person's mind could be quite different. If I have an elaborate theory about what someone else is thinking that's going to be a barrier to hearing what they are actually saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Yeah, if it's used like that I see the problem. My use of it came the other way though - listening to what she was saying and trying to make sense of it in some kind of framework. For instance, she said 'I find you attractive but I don't want to have sex with you' way before I came to AVEN, and outside of AVEN, that sentence sounds so contradictory that it left me speechless. However, in the AVEN worldview, it makes perfect sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to honour those who need some kind of label to describe what and who they are. It seems to be a human tendency. However, if I were to adhere rigidly to some of the definitions of asexuality, I would not even know where I stand. Instead, I prefer to be open minded and see the gray areas in between the yes/no categories. The maybe's are areas I enjoy. This site has helped me tremendously to feel like a whole human being because of all the comments and different ways that people express their asexuality. For me there is not any one total definition. There are degrees perhaps. For example, the person who has thought they were sexual but upon further introspection has discovered that it was all a kind of charade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is in the experience of the woman. As a lifelong asexual, I never wanted or liked sex. I had no experience of being sexual, so when I went through menopause, I did not miss sex, I didn't feel less like a woman, I didn't feel differently toward my male partner, I didn't feel like this was the beginning of the end. Many of those feelings are experienced by menopausal sexual women. And they may indeed be experienced by women who contract illnesses which affect their sexuality.

Yep that.

Sorry but there's a high percentage of women after 45 that don't experience sexiual attraction for anybody, in some cases they are even sex repulsed.The definition of asexuality in this web match exactllt what many woman experience after 45, but you can change the definition of course, to suit what you want that that it means to make you feel better.

Making asexuality into something regularly experienced by post-menopausal women, or people with illnesses that affect their sex drive etc, takes all legitimacy away from what asexual women have experienced their entire lives ..We didn't experience that whole "being a sexual person who desires sex and losing that as a result of menopause/illness/childbirth etc" because this is who we are, not what we have become. Yet you guys are making asexuality into this special orientation that includes all the people who lost all drive for sex as a result of illness/hormonal changes etc. That's just again giving an orientaion label to a normal thing that sexuals experience (like saying you're on the "asexual spectrum" if you want sex with someone until you get to know them *eye roll*) ..Asexuality is an orientation just like homosexuality in that you can't *change* it no matter how much you know about neuroplasticity. You don't "catch" it. It doesn't "happen" regularly to women all over the world on a daily basis just because they went through menopause or became severely ill or had a baby or whatever - those are actual medical issues. Asexuality is not a medical issue or a hormonal imbalance!"Aquiring asexuality" is like saying if a homosexual person forced themselves to have heterosexual sex for long enough, they'd "aquire" heterosexuality. Or if a heterosexual woman developed vestibulodynia (an extreme vaginal pain disorder that makes penetration impossible) she'd slowly "aquire" homosexuality because she doesn't need to be penetrated with a penis for that. Don't you see how you're totally iIlegitimizing innate asexuality by turning it into a relatively normal thing that many sexual people experience?

The definition of asexuality in this web match exactllt what many woman experience after 45, but you can change the definition of course, to suit what you want that that it means to make you feel better.

And there are many sexuaI peopIe (even some on AVEN) who don't experience ''sexuaI attraction'' the way it's most commonIy defined in the asexuaI community. That doesn't make them asexuaI though. Just makes them sexuaI peopIe who don't Iook at peopIe and get horny and want to fuck them based on this 'reaction' they are having to that persons appearance or presence or whatever. It's actuaIIy a minority of sexuaIs who experience that, regardIess of what music videos wouId have you think. And you understand that most peopIe trying to describe asexuaIity on the web have IiteraIIy no idea what they're on about? It's either teenagers basing everything they know about sexuaIity off things they read on TumbIr, or peopIe who are misinformed about what asexuaIity is (ie doctors who assume there has to be something medicaIIy wrong with someone for them to be asexuaI) .. There are very, very few accurate definitions of asexuaIity out there that aren't basing their ideas around misunderstandings of normaI sexuaIity or the assumption that asexuaIity is rooted in hormonaI issues/anxiety/depression etc.

Hey, then you have to change the definition of asexuality of this site, then you have to say that asexual is a person who doesn,t experience sexual attraction and it was always like that, and it has also to include that asexuality is only asexuality while the number of asexuals is just not too high so the concept can not be dismissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, then you have to change the definition of asexuality of this site, then you have to say that asexual is a person who doesn,t experience sexual attraction and it was always like that, and it has also to include that asexuality is only asexuality while the number of asexuals is just not too high so the concept can not be dismissed.

The definition of asexuality on this site (if you take into account the way AVEN defines 'sexual attraction') is ''An asexual person has no desire to connect sexually with others, to share their sexuality with them'' ..So no I don't need to change the definition of asexuality it's fine as it is, I just wish they'd word it more clearly and make their definition of sexual attraction easier for peopIe to find. Also no that doesn't mean ''people who have stopped desiring sex as a result of hormone changes'' ..That's a recognised medical condition, not a sexual orientation. I hope your ex girlfriend is okay after what happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
''people who have stopped desiring sex as a result of hormone changes''

can come to the same thing as

no desire to connect sexually with others, to share their sexuality with them

... so why the gatekeeping where that's the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, then you have to change the definition of asexuality of this site, then you have to say that asexual is a person who doesn,t experience sexual attraction and it was always like that, and it has also to include that asexuality is only asexuality while the number of asexuals is just not too high so the concept can not be dismissed.

The definition of asexuality on this site (if you take into account the way AVEN defines 'sexual attraction') is ''An asexual person has no desire to connect sexually with others, to share their sexuality with them'' ..So no I don't need to change the definition of asexuality it's fine as it is, I just wish they'd word it more clearly and make their definition of sexual attraction easier for peopIe to find. Also no that doesn't mean ''people who have stopped desiring sex as a result of hormone changes'' ..That's a recognised medical condition, not a sexual orientation. I hope your ex girlfriend is okay after what happened.

Well, that definition also describes women who are older than 45. Many of them feel exactlly like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, then you have to change the definition of asexuality of this site, then you have to say that asexual is a person who doesn,t experience sexual attraction and it was always like that, and it has also to include that asexuality is only asexuality while the number of asexuals is just not too high so the concept can not be dismissed.

The definition of asexuality on this site (if you take into account the way AVEN defines 'sexual attraction') is ''An asexual person has no desire to connect sexually with others, to share their sexuality with them'' ..So no I don't need to change the definition of asexuality it's fine as it is, I just wish they'd word it more clearly and make their definition of sexual attraction easier for peopIe to find. Also no that doesn't mean ''people who have stopped desiring sex as a result of hormone changes'' ..That's a recognised medical condition, not a sexual orientation. I hope your ex girlfriend is okay after what happened.

Well, that definition also describes women who are older than 45. Many of them feel exactlly like that.

Also no that doesn't mean ''people who have stopped desiring sex as a result of hormone changes'' ..That's a recognised medical condition, not a sexual orientation.

Aging and losing sex drive as a result of that does not = new sexual orientation. What you are describing is a normal aspect of sexuality that many, many sexual people experience all over the world every single day. I wish people would stop shitting on the asexual label by trying to include as many people experiencing normal aspects of sexuality as humanly possible into under the ''ace umbrella'' Y_Y

Link to post
Share on other sites
''people who have stopped desiring sex as a result of hormone changes''

can come to the same thing as

no desire to connect sexually with others, to share their sexuality with them

... so why the gatekeeping where that's the case?

You're talking about something that has happened as a result of hormonal changes (a medically recognised condition) NOT something that has always just been there (a sexual orientation)

This is a losing battle. When even the sexuals on this site want to squeeze everyone humanly possible into the asexual label, you know there are problems.

And again, at Tele and Blond, YOU'RE labeling these women. You're saying ''I read this definition and that definition and they sound the same.. wowowow asexual women are EVERYWHERE and new ones are appearing all over the world every single day after menopause''

Yet very, very few of these women themselves are coming out identifying as asexual. They still know they were sexual all their lives and are now experiencing changes as a result of what's happening with their hormones which is very, very normal.

Can you just stop labelling others because it's convenient for you to do so?? It's really rude. We aren't here to slap labels on other people but that's what you two men are doing right now, to a massive portion of the females alive on the planet today. Just, can they not come forward and label themselves if they felt the need to, instead of you trying to do it for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'm not labelling anyone. I'm pointing out you've invented another criterion for asexuality: a person can never have been interested in sex, or they're somehow not a real asexual. What about people who are okay with sex early in relationships? How do you differentiate that from a hormonal change? Why does the reason matter if the outcome is indistinguishable?

If you're making some kind of hormonal change a disqualifier from 'real' asexuality, then fine, but that means AVEN's going to have to see everyone's hormonal test results and kick out anyone suspected of being uninterested in sex with anyone purely because of their hormones. And how do you distinguish correlations from causation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not labelling anyone. I'm pointing out you've invented another criterion for asexuality: a person can never have been interested in sex, or they're somehow not a real asexual. What about people who are okay with sex early in relationships? How do you differentiate that from a hormonal change? Why does the reason matter if the outcome is indistinguishable?

If you're making some kind of hormonal change a disqualifier from 'real' asexuality, then fine, but that means AVEN's going to have to see everyone's hormonal test results and kick out anyone suspected of being uninterested in sex with anyone purely because of their hormones. And how do you distinguish correlations from causation?

I'm saying there is a massive difference between recognised medical conditions and sexual orientation!! (same with people who become less interested in sex after being in a relationship a while, that's NORMAL)

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/sex-drive-and-menopause

From Webmd, drugs and other treatments for loss of sex-drive during and after menopause. That's not going to *work* on an asexual because there is no cure for sexual orientation. You can't give a homosexual electroshock therapy to make them straight (they tried that) and you can't give an asexual woman medication and other forms of therapy to make her desire sex again (key word there, again. an asexual woman didn't desire partnered sex in the first place, a post-menopausal woman used to, and with the right therapies, treatments, healthy diet and exercise etc, can get that desire back.

That's the difference. One is a recognised, treatable medical condition, the other is a frikking sexual orientation that can't be treated in the exact same way homosexuality can't be treated.

This is as offensive for asexuals as if you were saying homosexuality is just the result of treatable medical conditions that people experience daily all over the world. It doesn't work like that. You can't treat asexuality, you CAN treat medical conditions that cause lack of sex-drive (and take other measures as well like eating healthier, exercising etc)

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of people IDing as asexual who actually do have hormonal imbalances (I've actually seen self-IDing asexuals here start desiring sex after testosterone treatment, for example) but there are many here who don't have hormonal issues or anything else causing their asexuality, and they're asexual anyway. Because that's what asexuality is. It's innate. It's there in the person regardless of any other factors (and they tested all this on asexual non-human animals, injecting them with sex hormones etc. The animals still didn't try to have sex, ever) ..What I'm saying is that just because a medical condition causing loss of sex drive and asexuality LOOK the same from the outside, they're really not the same at all.

And then take into account many asexuals do get horny like anyone else and are often all over their partner for sensual intimacy etc, just with no desire to actually HAVE sex because they have no interest in partnered genital stimulation then you'll see that asexuality and a total loss of sex drive really don't look much the same at all.

Many of us here are horny, dirty-minded perverts who do desire intimacy, sensuality, and physical interactions with our partner/other people. We just don't associate that with leading to partnered genital stimulation no matter how aroused we are. That's a shit-ton different than someone who has lost their sex drive as a result of menopause, illness, weight gain, depression etc.

And no I'm not saying people who are identifying as ace as a result of hormonal issues need to be ''kicked out'' (wtf?) I'm saying that post-menopausal loss of sex-drive and sexual orientation are different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to this, someone whose sex drive diminishes over time due to a hormonal or other medical condition will have experienced belonging to the majority group, as opposed to most asexuals who often describe feeling like they do not belong, like they're different from everyone else. Asexuality is an identity, not a label for a particular set of symptoms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolling Everforward

Well. Hm.

I started out thinking I wanted sex, but whenever I actually had it, I was uncomfortable with it. I was always sort of shy/awkward and never really felt comfortable with sex. Nonetheless, when I was much younger, all my friends were having sex or pursuing it. There was no such thing as FOMO then, but I had it.

Funny thing is, I never stopped feeling uncomfortable after sex and stressed before sex, and I never really saw what the big deal was. I was doing it because I felt I should be doing it, or because others expected it of me. Many years later, I've gotten to the point where I don't pursue sex, haven't had it for years, and don't miss it.

That may amount to acquired asexuality, or just plain old maturing into the realization that I don't have to live up to outside expectations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. Hm.

I started out thinking I wanted sex, but whenever I actually had it, I was uncomfortable with it. I was always sort of shy/awkward and never really felt comfortable with sex. Nonetheless, when I was much younger, all my friends were having sex or pursuing it. There was no such thing as FOMO then, but I had it.

Funny thing is, I never stopped feeling uncomfortable after sex and stressed before sex, and I never really saw what the big deal was. I was doing it because I felt I should be doing it, or because others expected it of me. Many years later, I've gotten to the point where I don't pursue sex, haven't had it for years, and don't miss it.

That may amount to acquired asexuality, or just plain old maturing into the realization that I don't have to live up to outside expectations.

It doesn't sound from what you say that you ever had sex just because you wanted it (rather than you thought you should want it). Thus, probably just plain asexuality, rather than "acquired" asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

a post-menopausal woman used to, and with the right therapies, treatments, healthy diet and exercise etc, can get that desire back.

If they want to. Plenty don't - read some post menopause forums. I have.

What I'm saying is that just because a medical condition causing loss of sex drive and asexuality LOOK the same from the outside, they're really not the same at all.

I'm saying we can't know they're different.

What's the difference internally if the post menopausal woman has no libido and no desire to have one? And since it's internal, and therefore subjective, how can anyone know? Other people can't know because we don't know the other person's internal landscape, and the person themselves can't know because they have no other person's internal workings to compare themselves with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. Hm. I started out thinking I wanted sex, but whenever I actually had it, I was uncomfortable with it. I was always sort of shy/awkward and never really felt comfortable with sex. Nonetheless, when I was much younger, all my friends were having sex or pursuing it. There was no such thing as FOMO then, but I had it. Funny thing is, I never stopped feeling uncomfortable after sex and stressed before sex, and I never really saw what the big deal was. I was doing it because I felt I should be doing it, or because others expected it of me. Many years later, I've gotten to the point where I don't pursue sex, haven't had it for years, and don't miss it. That may amount to acquired asexuality, or just plain old maturing into the realization that I don't have to live up to outside expectations.

It doesn't sound from what you say that you ever had sex just because you wanted it (rather than you thought you should want it). Thus, probably just plain asexuality, rather than "acquired" asexuality.

Yeah I think I noticed that with another couple of posts in this thread too. Sounded more like someone always having been asexual then finally coming to terms with it/accepting it, after having tried to force themselves to "be" sexual for years/decades (assuming that's the only way to be) ..That's not Aquiring Asexuality, it's discovering/accepting it.

I notice that a lot on AVEN when people try to say "people turn gay" as an argument for "Aquiring asexuality". But in almost all the cases I've heard of (which is a lot) they person had actually been homosexual all along, but was identifying as heterosexual and just assuming that's what they were. Never found sex that satisfying or whatever but meh. Not until like their 40s or whatever do they finally start exploring and "discover" they're actually homosexual. That's not fluid sexuality though, that's changing your orientation label becausd you've found one that fits you better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Plectrophenax

This is a really interesting topic.

Personally, I prefer a descriptive approach to sexuality, meaning that such a thing as 'acquired asexuality' is, in theory at least, possible provided a set of criteria that defines asexuality is met. Perhaps that's not to the benefit of those who prefer to differentiate any old ascribed or self-identified 'asexuality' from the 'authentic' asexuality as an orientation, but I suppose this can only really be solved by ironing out terminology.

Now, such a descriptive approach seems to have the possible [and undesirable] side effect that, say, homosexuals forcing themselves into heterosexual relations and heterosexual likes and dislikes could qualify, for all intents and purposes, as heterosexual - or, if one wants to be particularly cynical about it, a 'functional heterosexual'. I don't think that is particularly helpful, but really it's not 'identification' that is the issue here, it's the so-called 'innate' preference that a person has and merely ignores or supresses. Such a preference has to be present in order to warrant any association with an orientation, and I would say that this goes for the person in question as well [in other words, I do believe that such a thing als 'false identification' exists, as is evident in the case of the homosexual ascribing hereosexuality to themselves]. Thus, there does seem to be a set of 'symptoms' that distinguishes one orientation from another, and one generally identifies accordingly. If it were the other way around, then surely that would be when sexual orientations would become inflated.

The problem seems to be that people who 'lose' their sexuality [i'm phrasing it this strongly to include only the most extreme cases] effectively match the descriptive standard of asexuality. The 'gaining' of asexuality is, in this sense, equivalent to the 'loss' of sexuality. Even if they do not self-identify as asexuals, I would dare to say, their evident lack of indicators ['symptoms'] as to their sexuality makes any ascription as to their sexuality either false or weakened [i.e. limited to something like romantic attraction]. It seems perfectly reasonable to call someone like that asexual - unless what one means by asexual is something like 'person who is uninterested in sexual interaction independently of any physical factors and/or who considers this trait a defining part of their personality'. The prior would make the assumption that asexuality is something 'innate' in the strongest possible sense, hard-wired into us [from birth or since we can think] and has no tangible ties to evident or known physical factors, especially not such that may be considered 'damaged' or 'faulty' or 'expired' or whatnot. The latter would equate it with an identity, which is obviously something that cannot be ascribed.

I hope that made somewhat sense. While I only tentatively agree that others should not be grouped under a label that implies identification without explicit self-identification first [because I take that to include, for example, the closeted homosexual], I do agree that there is a relevant difference between those who lack sexual desire due to ageing or some other 'impeding' process and those who lack sexual desire in spite of having no such inhibitors as to their biological health at all. Though I'm fairly certain that, given our understanding of the human body and mind, the distinction isn't qute as clear as it may seem.

AsexuaIity is never having had that desire to connect sexuaIIy with others (for sexuaI and/or emotionaI pIeasure) in the first pIace.

In other words, people cannot 'become' asexual once they have had such a desire? I realise you are responding to the case where the desire is lost due to some dysfunction [in which case I would agree that there's a difference in type of asexuality, at least], but do you think it is generally impossible for people to lose a desire to connect sexually with others if they once did? Is it feasable, to you, for such a person to be asexual in your sense of the word? Like, say, if merely the desire shifted without evident physical cause [like menopause] - but allowing for the possibility that the shift may have been caused by some biochemical change that is not [as] evident?

To add to this, someone whose sex drive diminishes over time due to a hormonal or other medical condition will have experienced belonging to the majority group, as opposed to most asexuals who often describe feeling like they do not belong, like they're different from everyone else. Asexuality is an identity, not a label for a particular set of symptoms.

I don't necessarily agree with the bolded assessment and would be particularly curious to hear your remarks to what was hopefully a clear enough elaboration of my stance, if you are so inclined. As for the overall post, are you saying that, for the label of 'asexuality' to be applicable, a sense of general alienation from the majority group may be required? If so, how would that not be a 'symptom' of asexuality, or at least could be understood as one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I thought that might be there case with my wife for a while, but she's very insistent that she actively wanted sex her own enjoyment earlier in the relationship, just not for the same emotional reasons I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a post-menopausal woman used to, and with the right therapies, treatments, healthy diet and exercise etc, can get that desire back.

If they want to. Plenty don't - read some post menopause forums. I have.

What I'm saying is that just because a medical condition causing loss of sex drive and asexuality LOOK the same from the outside, they're really not the same at all.

I'm saying we can't know they're different.

What's the difference internally if the post menopausal woman has no libido and no desire to have one? And since it's internal, and therefore subjective, how can anyone know? Other people can't know because we don't know the other person's internal landscape, and the person themselves can't know because they have no other person's internal workings to compare themselves with.

Treatment *is* possible for a post-menopausal woman though IF she wanted it. Do you have any idea how many asexuals WANT to be sexual and who would take treatment if it was there?? How many of us do *everything we possibly can* to try to "be sexual" (often without even knowing we're asexual, we're just convinced there's something wrong us) ..You *can't cure asexuality whether you want to or not* ..It's just there and you're stuck with it!

So you're saying because WE don't know if they're asexual, and THEY don't know they're asexual.. they what.. must be asexual? Because you, a sexual guy, said they must be? o_0

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Treatment *is* possible for a post-menopausal woman though IF she wanted it.

But the entire point is that she doesn't want it, because she now has now interest in having sex with anyone. If she was 20 and had never wanted sex with anyone, you'd unhesitatingly say that defined asexuality. So the only difference here is that she once did, and now doesn't; so there's gatekeeping based on 'must have never ever wanted sex with anyone else'.

I agree that losing sexual interested but wanting it back is different, and things can be done about that. But that's not the issue here.

And just as there are plenty of asexuals who want/try to be sexual, there are plenty perfectly content not to be, and have no desire to try to be. That would be another shared attitude in this case.

So you're saying because WE don't know if they're asexual, and THEY don't know they're asexual.. they what.. must be asexual? Because you, a sexual guy, said they must be? o_0

No. I'm saying you can't say they're not asexual. Which is different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

Assuming these people don't self identify as asexual, I can't prove a negative but I am not required to. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In the absence of proof, I do not believe that these non self identifying people have acquired asexuality. I am an agnostic nonbeliever on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'm not claiming they are. I'm saying I don't see the difference in any way that anyone can articulate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...