Acquired Asexuality

[Tarfeather]

If they are indistinguishable from an asexual.. The simplest explanation is that they are asexual. Occam's razor still applies, enough with that "burden of proof" BS.

[nanogretchen4]

What does it mean to say that someone is indistinguishable from an asexual? Both definitions of asexuality revolve around not feeling an emotion. Neither is based on observable behavior. Thus if someone tells you they are asexual, as far as you know they are. If someone tells you they are not asexual, as far as you know they are not. If they make no statement on the topic, you just don't know.

[Guest]

If they are indistinguishable from an asexual.. The simplest explanation is that they are asexual. Occam's razor still applies, enough with that "burden of proof" BS.

A homosexual man who is married to a woman, fucking his wife, has four kids etc, is indistinguishable from a heterosexual man but he's NOT heterosexual man, he's still homosexual and just keeping up the appearance of being straight for whatever reason (which happens a lot). You can't judge sexual orientation based on how something LOOKS from the outside.

[Telecaster68]

If someone tells you they are not asexual, as far as you know they are not.

Assuming they know about it, or want to identify it. Plenty of asexuals struggle with this.

At what point do we say 'this person says they have no desire for partnered sex, ever, no libido, no fantasies, takes no pleasure in sex, never wants to have sex but because they don't want to use the word, they're not asexual'?

[Galactic Turtle]

What a strange convo. @__@ Well, I pretty much agree with Pan, if that counts for anything. But I'm also pretty sure the main reason this is even up for debate in the first place is because amongst sexual orientations, asexuality is an outlier. Before I heard about it I thought gay = guys attracted to guys, lesbian = girls attracted to girls, bi = guys and girls attracted to more guys and girls, straight = criss cross galore. "Sexual attraction" never crossed my mind. I'm a girl who likes K-pop boybands so hey, I'm heterosexual/straight/complete criss cross galore because Changmin is a beautiful man...

... who I want absolutely no sexual, sensual, or romantic relations with. Let's be Star Wars Lego pals and get married so we can get money and lots of presents. And stop taking your shirt off and pouring water all over yourself. It makes you look like an idiot... and that's also the reason why I felt and still feel like a freak that needs to be fixed which was put into perspective when my "real life Changmin" expressed interest in me... along with several other "real life bad Changmin's."

*sigh*

But because there's a whole sexual vs. romantic attraction thing in play, you can't just say that asexual automatically equates to being completely 100% aro ace (but if it did I think its existence wouldn't be as up for debate as much). It has instead become a list of symptoms to describe a state of being which, if taken 100% literally, includes like... half the women in the world whose bodies are retiring from the baby making business... where normally this is just considered to be... getting older and completely normal. My mom and two grandmothers I'm pretty sure aren't into having sex anymore but they're old. Their era of engaging in sexy times has come to an end. They always knew it was coming because when you get old that's just a thing that can and does happen. So it's kind of like how perhaps being born with gray hair is a bit strange while your hair turning gray once you age is normal and expected... even if some people start to grow gray hairs somewhat earlier than others. The outcome is the same, the appearance is the same, but the experience leading up to that point in time is very different for those two sets of people.

To Telecaster/Tar it seems like the outcome is what matters while for Pan it seems like it's the experience that matters. *shrugs*

(It's also why there are a lot of people who are like "I was asexual for three months because I had a bad breakup with my boyfriend because my state of being matched these symptoms during that period of time that I will dramatically call my barren summer leading up to senior year.")

I have always assumed that men, in general, lose their innate desire for sex (disregarding their ability to "get it up" or not) later in life than women because their bodies don't go through changes on the level of childbirth or menopause. If my dad started going around calling my mom (age 57) asexual, that would be pretty odd... and would seem to me like he's having at least some level of trouble coping with the fact that my mom has lost interest naturally because that's just what happens sometimes. Then if he were to continue and say that my mom is asexual she just doesn't know it while she says "nah I'm just getting old and I don't mind"... that would be even more odd...?

But at the end of the day I guess it really does come down to if you see asexuality as a (temporary but also maybe permanent) state of being or as a sexual orientation (which can be fluid but is overwhelmingly usually not). It's also possible to consciously or unconsciously combine both the concept of a state of being and an orientation together which can create murky waters for threads like these.

Maybe I'm just totally wrong about all of this because I'm stupid so ignore everything I just said if it's disrupting the conversation. Sorry for butting in!

[Snao Cone]

Losing something is not the same as never having had it.

If you want to do logical gymnastics to justify using a word that people with very uncommon feelings and experiences adopted to represent themselves when your own experiences are very common, then, well, I'm but a feeble individual who barely has the energy to write up this post. I'm far less interested in finding common ground for people who have lost their interest in sex after a normal sexual life, because it's completely irrelevant to me. That's not the asexuality I'm here to discuss, just like adolescent nervousness.

An adult whose elderly parents have died did not grow up an orphan. They may be struggling emotionally, but their experiences aren't comparable to someone who lost their parents in infancy.

My parents are not child-free. They live without kids in the house, but their lifestyle hasn't been comparable to their peers who never had kids.

People who are born deaf experience the world in a vastly different way from those who lose their hearing over time. The same applies to congenital blindness versus deteriorating vision.

There are things in common, on paper and perhaps some overlap in current perspective. But my life will not be understood with the statement "Oh, she just doesn't bother having sex anymore." When a lack of sexuality is being studied, there better damn well be a distinction between "asexual" and "no longer sexual" or the information is worthless. That distinction is crucial to understanding asexuality. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then perhaps you should consider also how it may be different from ducks.

[Telecaster68]

But there's literally nothing in anything my wife says or does that wouldn't be clearly asexual if she'd always been like that. And at no point, ever, has she had any emotional component to sex.

If that's not asexual, then asexuals can include:

- people who have sex several times a week, enjoy it, and get emotional satisfaction because they enjoy the closeness with their partners who *are* asexual, as long as they don't have any innate attraction, whatever that means.

but not:

- people who now never want to have sex, have never had any emotional component to it, have no libido, and take no physical pleasure in it, because once upon a time they did want sex for purely physical reasons

Insane.

[Snao Cone]

Where did I state that your first example would be asexual?

[Guest]

Functionally asexual and asexual are different.

That being said, if i went around saying that ladies who find same-sex love late in life aren't gay just because they weren't always gay, I'd be very, very wrong. I highly doubt that asexuality is the only orientation that people don't sort of... develop into. No, they didn't have the same experiences as someone who was asexual at age 16 (when it's much harder to be different), but that doesn't make them not asexual. Shared experiences matter but aren't the defining characteristic of an orientation. And in any case, Tele's wife certainly is piling up the asexual experiences now... her marriage is falling apart because she can no longer bring herself to have sex. Pretty dead center in asexual-land, experience-wise. So there's that too.

So, to Pan, SC, etc... do you see a distinction between someone who fluidly shifted to asexuality vs. someone who is merely "functionally asexual"? Or are they the same?

Personally, I don't believe in sexual fluidity so this is kind of a weird conversation, but I'm curious about the answer regardless.

Finally, this whole convo reminds me of the lyrics:

And they say that alcoholics are always alcoholics
Even when they're as dry as my lips for years
Even when they're stranded on a small desert island
With no place within 2,000 miles to buy beer
And I wonder
Is he different?
Is he different?
Has he changed? what's he about?..
Or is he just a liar with nothing to lie about?

[Tarfeather]

You know, there are women who even post-menopause, look back at their sex life in the past with fondness, and are certainly glad they experienced that, even if they no longer have much of an interest in it anymore in the now. Someone like that probably wouldn't ID as asexual. It sounded to me, though, like Telecaster's wife isn't like that, and I believe it's likely there are many other women with the same experience. Maybe there are just people, who are kinda "okay" with sex, but if they lose their drive, it doesn't make a difference to them? Wouldn't that be the very definition of asexual?

[Snao Cone]

"Functionally asexual" certainly overlaps with some experiences of people who are flat-out asexual. I certainly prefer that over calling it "fluidity". The questions of "When did you determine you were asexual?" and "When did you stop being sexual?" are very different. I don't know why it's so personally offensive to suggest that. I ask this earnestly, is "no longer sexual" hurtful to people who are now functionally asexual?

[Guest]

"Functionally asexual" certainly overlaps with some experiences of people who are flat-out asexual. I certainly prefer that over calling it "fluidity". The questions of "When did you determine you were asexual?" and "When did you stop being sexual?" are very different. I don't know why it's so personally offensive to suggest that. I ask this earnestly, is "no longer sexual" hurtful to people who are now functionally asexual?

Fluidity in this context is absurd. We all change over time... specifically, puberty and old age... we all enter sexuality and we all exit it. Given most people will eventually lose their sexual desire, does it make any sense to call someone who once had sexual desire "asexual"? If yes, then doesn't that mean 100% of the population were, are, or will be asexual? I see no value in considering asexuality that way, personally.

[Telecaster68]

Snow, you didn't make that first suggestion but it's a common enough trope on AVEN.

I don't find it offensive or inoffensive to be called asexual or not, just illogical that while fluidity and 'why' doesn't matter are two of AVEN's shibboleths, apparently none of this counts if the reason for a change is clear-cut.

Maybe it's partly political: that if a cause is identified, it'll become a stick to try to 'cure' people with. But that's a separate argument to have, and denying logic because its politically awkward is very, very dangerous.

Skulls - I've seen the 'we're all born asexual, I just stayed that way' trope used on AVEN plenty. If in ageing absolutely everybody lost all libido and desire for sex, then you might have point. But not everybody does, particularly when it comes to whether they're bothered or not. If you read some menopause forums (I have) there's a range of feeling on that. Some women embrace not caring about sex enthusiastically, some grudgingly, some hate it, some don't change, some get hornier. But when they end up saying absolutely, precisely what lifelong asexuals say when it comes to innate desire etc. it's just perverse to say they're not asexual.

[Guest]

I'm not saying Tele's wife (or any other post-menopausal woman with long-term illness who has lost her sex-drive as a result of these things) isn't asexual if *she identifies with that label and feels it fits her* (though I don't see personally why label hijacking is necessary when you could just say "I've lost my sex drive as a result of menopause and/or illness and/or old age and/or because I've been married to him for 13 years and that sexual spark I had when I met him at 19 has died.." because um..that's what has happened)

What I am objecting to is other people reading the definition of asexual then slapping that on post-menopausal women and old people and people who have lost their sex-drive as a result of long-term illness.

On top of that, if you start including old people, sick people, and post-menopausal women in the definition of asexuality it's just going to the give the rest of the world even more reason to see asexuals as sick, broken, and definitely fixable (asexuals already have enough trouble with that as it is). Asexuality is not something that just happens to people all over the world every single day as a normal part of being an aging and/or unwell sexual, or as a result of losing that sexual spark with your husband or wife after many years but still loving them so you don't want to leave.

Many asexuals *do* have, er, physical drive and are very healthy and active etc. We do desire and enjoy physical interactions with our partner but we just have no desire for it to lead to actual sex (no matter how horny we are) That's very different than a sexual person who is so sick they have lost all drive, generally they aren't all over their partner wanting other forms of sensual intimacy etc from what I've seen. You might say "that very, very unwell person is so sick that they don't want sex anymore, they're practically asexual!" but looking at the amount of horny asexuals around here (who just have no interest in that arousal leading to sex) I'd say the sick person just looks like a sick person who has lost their sex drive, not an asexual.

Do you really need to hijack an orientation label to describe something normal that happens to people all over the world every single day?

Aren't there already entire forums and other websites dedicated to marriages/people who are struggling with celibacy as a result of loss of sex drive either in themselves or in their partner? I know I've seen them around.

Again, if an individual wants to say they've "acquired asexuality as a result of a medical condition and/or aging" that's their buzz (though I imagine there will be a lot of people here who say "asexuality isn't something people develop all over the world every single day, way to illegitimize our sexual orientation thanks") but having a bunch of sexuals forcing "sick, hormone imbalances - that's exactly what asexuality is like" on asexuals, and "asexual" on post-menopausal women (without the agreement of those people themselves) is just a step too far for me.

[Lord Jade Cross]

I have to wonder why we cant change the mentality that anything not sexual in people has to be automatically classified as a disease/ailment

[nanogretchen4]

If we are going to slap the asexual label on people who don't currently want sex for obvious physical reasons, are there any limits? If someone has no sexual desire for two weeks due to the flu, were they functionally asexual for two weeks? If they lose interest for six months due to childbirth and lactation, were they asexual for six months? If someone loses their libido for years due to medication side effects, then regains it after they switch to a new medication, did they really change sexual orientations twice? What if someone goes through menopause and finds that what used to work for them sexually just doesn't work anymore, and at first they get so depressed that they want to give up on the whole thing, but later they adjust to their new normal and decide postmenopausal sex is worth having? Where is the benefit in trying to impose a sexual orientation label on someone who doesn't think it fits?

[Sally]

You know, there are women who even post-menopause, look back at their sex life in the past with fondness, and are certainly glad they experienced that, even if they no longer have much of an interest in it anymore in the now. Someone like that probably wouldn't ID as asexual. It sounded to me, though, like Telecaster's wife isn't like that, and I believe it's likely there are many other women with the same experience. Maybe there are just people, who are kinda "okay" with sex, but if they lose their drive, it doesn't make a difference to them? Wouldn't that be the very definition of asexual?

No. The very definition of asexual, to me, is someone who doesn't want to have sex with other people. Some of us are OK with sex for the sake of our partners. Some of us aren't, and that has to do with our feelings about the physical act, not our "drive" (which is libido and, as you have probably read time and again on AVEN, can be satisfied by masturbation for people who don't want sex).

[nanogretchen4]

I also think a person with very little libido can desire sex for emotional and/or sensual enjoyment without feeling a physical urge for it.

[Telecaster68]

What I am objecting to is other people reading the definition of asexual then slapping that on post-menopausal women and old people and people who have lost their sex-drive as a result of long-term illness.

Why, if they fit the definition?

[Tarfeather]

You know, there are women who even post-menopause, look back at their sex life in the past with fondness, and are certainly glad they experienced that, even if they no longer have much of an interest in it anymore in the now. Someone like that probably wouldn't ID as asexual. It sounded to me, though, like Telecaster's wife isn't like that, and I believe it's likely there are many other women with the same experience. Maybe there are just people, who are kinda "okay" with sex, but if they lose their drive, it doesn't make a difference to them? Wouldn't that be the very definition of asexual?

No. The very definition of asexual, to me, is someone who doesn't want to have sex with other people. Some of us are OK with sex for the sake of our partners. Some of us aren't, and that has to do with our feelings about the physical act, not our "drive" (which is libido and, as you have probably read time and again on AVEN, can be satisfied by masturbation for people who don't want sex).

If the only reason they enjoy sex, is because they enjoy the physical sensation, and the factor of enjoying the physical sensation disappears, then they become effectively asexual.

[Sally]

If the only reason they enjoy sex, is because they enjoy the physical sensation, and the factor of enjoying the physical sensation disappears, then they become effectively asexual.

You may think so, but I as someone who's been asexual all my life doesn't think they're "effectively asexual". They could at some point start enjoying sex again, because there's some reason (probably biological/hormonal/psychological) why they stopped enjoying it. I've never enjoyed it.

[Telecaster68]

If we are going to slap the asexual label on people who don't currently want sex for obvious physical reasons, are there any limits? If someone has no sexual desire for two weeks due to the flu, were they functionally asexual for two weeks? If they lose interest for six months due to childbirth and lactation, were they asexual for six months? If someone loses their libido for years due to medication side effects, then regains it after they switch to a new medication, did they really change sexual orientations twice? What if someone goes through menopause and finds that what used to work for them sexually just doesn't work anymore, and at first they get so depressed that they want to give up on the whole thing, but later they adjust to their new normal and decide postmenopausal sex is worth having? Where is the benefit in trying to impose a sexual orientation label on someone who doesn't think it fits?

People who don't feel like sex, because of childbirth, medication, depression or flu know that it's temporary and when those causes end, they'll almost certainly feel like sex again. They generally want to get their sexuality back. Menopause is different - it's permanent - and somewhere between 30-50% of women take a huge hit on their libido, and in a significant proportion have no desire for sex ever again. I'm sourcing this from commonly available figures from respectable websites and forums.

The very definition of asexual, to me, is someone who doesn't want to have sex with other people.

Except, apparently, if they stopped wanting to have sex with other people because of menopause. It seems to come down to 'if you know why someone is effectively asexual, they're not'?

Where is the benefit in trying to impose a sexual orientation label on someone who doesn't think it fits?

First of all, I haven't 'slapped a label' on my wife. I've never used the word talking to her, and probably won't. She can identify as whatever she likes, I've simply asked questions and tried to make sense of the answers, and me understanding her in terms of asexuality has helped me hugely, and because of that, we have a better relationship. It's allowed me to understand that lack of sexual interest isn't a symptom of something else wrong in the relationship, or her resenting me, or anything that's going to get fixed, and that affects how I behave towards her.

[Telecaster68]

If the only reason they enjoy sex, is because they enjoy the physical sensation, and the factor of enjoying the physical sensation disappears, then they become effectively asexual.

You may think so, but I as someone who's been asexual all my life doesn't think they're "effectively asexual". They could at some point start enjoying sex again, because there's some reason (probably biological/hormonal/psychological) why they stopped enjoying it. I've never enjoyed it.

What Tar describes is pretty much what's happened to my wife.

Yes, it could change, but any asexual could in theory start enjoying sex at some point. What's different here?

In my wife's case, she's been like this for years, with no sign of the slightest change in any sexual enjoyment or feeling of wanting to have sex. Why assume that menopause will suddenly change, several years in, any more than puberty would? They're roughly the same level of significance, I'd have thought.

[Sally]

If the only reason they enjoy sex, is because they enjoy the physical sensation, and the factor of enjoying the physical sensation disappears, then they become effectively asexual.

You may think so, but I as someone who's been asexual all my life doesn't think they're "effectively asexual". They could at some point start enjoying sex again, because there's some reason (probably biological/hormonal/psychological) why they stopped enjoying it. I've never enjoyed it.

What Tar describes is pretty much what's happened to my wife.

Yes, it could change, but any asexual could in theory start enjoying sex at some point. What's different here?

In my wife's case, she's been like this for years, with no sign of the slightest change in any sexual enjoyment or feeling of wanting to have sex. Why assume that menopause will suddenly change, several years in, any more than puberty would? They're roughly the same level of significance, I'd have thought.

Has your wife been that way all her life? Did she ever enjoy sex, or want it?

If she's not enjoying sex because she's menopausal, taking replacement hormones (estrogen and testosterone, because a little of the latter is what makes women want sex) could very well cause her to want sex again. If she's uncomfortable because of her physical condition/illness, then probably she won't change. Again, there are reasons regarding your wife's not wanting sex.

There's no reason I don't and never have, except asexuality. Menopause didn't make any difference because I didn't want sex before menopause.

[Telecaster68]

Has your wife been that way all her life? Did she ever enjoy sex, or want it?

She's said she liked it and wanted it on a purely physical level premenopause. No emotional component, ever. We've talked a lot about this.

If she's not enjoying sex because she's menopausal, taking replacement hormones (estrogen and testosterone, because a little of the latter is what makes women want sex) could very well cause her to want sex again.

She's on HRT (mostly for other menopausal symptoms) but it's made no difference to her libido. She also has lupus, and lupus and HRT meds don't play nice so the effects on menopause and lupus need to be balanced, which is trial and error. More hormones means worse lupus. She's at the optimum balance now.

If she's uncomfortable because of her physical condition/illness, then probably she won't change.

She's not physically uncomfortable with it. Her lupus is chronic but not severe, and plenty of people with her level of the illness have a libido and find ways to have sex. She's made a point of telling both me and her doctor that sex isn't painful. The sensations just do nothing for her, kind of like touching someone's elbow. You can feel it, it's not pleasant or unpleasant, it just is. And since that physical sensation was all she ever got out of sex, and her hormones have crashed, she has no reason to want sex. She also has no libido in terms of masturbation, fantasies, etc. and has said she would be fine with never have sex again.

Again, there are reasons regarding your wife's not wanting sex.

Yes, so what? The result is that her feelings about sex now are the same as yours now. Just because we can identify reasons, doesn't mean the result can be changed, or that she wants to change it.

[Plectrophenax]

Again, there are reasons regarding your wife's not wanting sex.

There's no reason I don't and never have, except asexuality.

I already stated that I agree with the notion that these are different cases in some way. But let me see if I understand correctly;

It seems to me that, to you, the only real but crucial difference between these two particular cases [yourself and Telecaster's wife] is that, technically, a doctor could come along and tinker with the latter's hormones resulting in her potentially regaining a desire for sexual interaction, while a doctor doing the same to you would have no chance to cause such a desire to crop up, because you lack the desire in spite of being biologically healthy, according to the medical standard at least. Is that correct?

If so, I feel as though it would be pertinent to abandon relying too much on asexuality as a label of identification and instead seriously take it as genuine orientation that is entirely different from a physical defect [so a person who suffers from hyposexual disorder but doesn't feel too much frustration about that is not a proper asexual because, after all, there are discernable reasons for the asexuality - them identifying as asexual might be comforting for them, but ultimately a detriment to the movement because it allows for the inclusion of a huge amount of people who might just decide to self-identify as asexual on the completely legitimate ground of lacking sexual desire (due to hormonal changes)]. It would, it seems, be advisable for every person identifying as asexual - provided they are refering to an orientation and not 'merely' an identity - to get a complete checkup to establish whether or not they are asexuals of your ilk or asexuals in the vein of Telecaster's wife. After all, it is entirely possible that a person identifying as asexual no matter at what age is, in truth, subject to some defect that they simply never noticed nor even have cause to or interest in noticing.

Unless, that is, you are suggesting that this case is still different because there was never a [conscious?] moment when such a desire was positively felt? I.e. a person with a defect that was never treated is as authentically asexual as a person who is asexual 'without a reason'? I don't think that's what you're saying so you seem to necessarily end up with a causal argument for determining asexuality.

Of course, the danger here is that people might argue that asexuality always has 'reasons' that can be considered as 'defects' due to the normalcy of sexual desire [and, indeed, not few people make this point]. This can be countered effectively by considering asexuality a mere absence of desire regardless of reasons but that, again, would necessarily include the likes of Telecaster's wife [though most reasonably as part of a wider spectrum or a different (sub)type].

Am I being fair to your position here? Where, according to you, is the line of thinking going astray, assuming that you don't agree with what I've laid out?

[Telecaster68]

On top of that, if you start including old people, sick people, and post-menopausal women in the definition of asexuality it's just going to the give the rest of the world even more reason to see asexuals as sick, broken, and definitely fixable (asexuals already have enough trouble with that as it is).

That's the political reason I mentioned earlier. Suppressing logical, rational conclusions for political reasons is a very bad route to choose.

losing that sexual spark with your husband or wife after many years but still loving them so you don't want to leave.

Again, that's not what's happening in my case. My wife's very clear that she's lost all interest in sex, with anyone, ever.

[Telecaster68]

technically, a doctor could come along and tinker with the latter's hormones resulting in her potentially regaining a desire for sexual interaction

In theory this is true, but in practice it's been tried and no tinkering made the slightest bit of difference.

[Plectrophenax]

In theory this is true, but in practice it's been tried and no tinkering made the slightest bit of difference.

For the argument, the theoretical possibility is all that is required since the claim seem to be that such a possibility, even if only theoretical, only exists in one of the two cases.

Though it seems apparent that, what really seperates them is that one case has a clearly traceable cause [that, in your case, is a percieved 'defect' that cannot, for one reason or another, be 'fixed' and not for lack of trying] and the other does not [which results in a general inability to attempt 'fixing' to begin with].

[Telecaster68]

Yes, that's exactly my point.

People seem to be saying that purely although my wife lost any interest in sex and espouses the same things that would otherwise be uncontroversially asexual, that she's not asexual because the cause is fairly clear.

That seems like politically-based gatekeeping to me. If there are cases where reasons are clear, some people are worried that'll be used as ammunition by those who want to say all asexuality has an identifiable cause, and therefore a solution and is therefore a defect, so no clearcut reasons are allowed.

Then they have to use pretzel twisted logic to reach a conclusions that somehow these cases aren't 'true' asexuality and you get to a position I outlined in post 97.

Allowing politics to pre-empt your conclusions is very dangerous.