Feminist Asexuality

[Pramana]

Asexuality is most commonly defined as a lack of sexual attraction (sexual desires or sexual feelings for others), rather than as a lack of sexual desire (libido). Sexual attraction is thought to define sexual orientation because this psychological state has evolved to orientate people's sexual interests towards advantageous reproductive targets, creating a stable pattern of sexual preferences. So far, sexual attraction has proved resistant to medical interventions. On the other hand, sexual desire shows more fluctuation over the life course, and is susceptible to medications that can either increase or decrease libido. However, some feminist authors argue that women who develop low libido later in life should adopt an asexual identity for the purpose of challenging the pathologization of their acquired sexual disinterest. These authors view the diagnosis of HSDD as patriarchal oppression, designed to force female sexuality to conform to a male standard.

I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this matter?

[God of the Forest]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

to oppressive male sexual expectations

are you talking in a case by case scenario or are you referring men having oppressive sexual expectations in general?

[Pramana]

Just now, King of the Forest said:

are you talking in a case by case scenario or are you referring men having oppressive sexual expectations in general?

The idea is that it's oppression whenever a woman's level of sexual desire is pathologized because it's lower than that of her male partner.

[Guest]

And what about the hardcore antifeminist men we have here (and general anti feminist men, as well as anti-feminist women) who have no desire to connect sexually with anyone because they just naturally don't want to have sex? It's not that they're rebelling against something, they just have no desire to connect sexually with others. Even actual feminists here (ie Sally who has been a feminist for decades) don't identify as asexual as a feminist thing, and you suggesting people actually identify as asexual as a feminist thing is really belittling (and misrepresenting) what asexuality actually is. Okay so there may be some feminists who reject sexual intimacy as part of their ideology, but that is NOT asexuality. With asexuality, you just naturally have no desire to connect sexually with others *regardless* of whether you're male or female, or feminist or an anti-feminist. 

 

This is the same as saying all lesbian women are only lesbians becaus they're feminists and refuse to have sex with men. Being a lesbian is obviously just a feminist thing. No woman could naturally just prefer to have sex with other women, right? That's impossible, she must be a feminist.

[Pramana]

It is difficult to respond to the above comments because they represent a monumental failure of reading comprehension.

[Flygunn]

1 hour ago, Pan. said:

And what about the hardcore antifeminist men we have here (and general anti feminist men, as well as anti-feminist women) who have no desire to connect sexually with anyone because they just naturally don't want to have sex? It's not that they're rebelling against something, they just have no desire to connect sexually with others. Even actual feminists here (ie Sally who has been a feminist for decades) don't identify as asexual as a feminist thing, and you suggesting people actually identify as asexual as a feminist thing is really belittling (and misrepresenting) what asexuality actually is. Okay so there may be some feminists who reject sexual intimacy as part of their ideology, but that is NOT asexuality. With asexuality, you just naturally have no desire to connect sexually with others *regardless* of whether you're male or female, or feminist or an anti-feminist. 

 

This is the same as saying all lesbian women are only lesbians becaus they're feminists and refuse to have sex with men. Being a lesbian is obviously just a feminist thing. No woman could naturally just prefer to have sex with other women, right? That's impossible, she must be a feminist.

Pramana never stated his opinion on this subject, if you read the majority of Pramana's posts, they are summaries of certain concepts related to asexuality based on the findings/analysis/opinions of researchers/theorists in order to inform or form a discussion.  Pramana is not saying that all asexuals are as one of the ideals here suggests.  This post is a unbiased 100% info drop.  If you wanted to read it as a comparison between the two ideologies, you could.  If you wanted to read it as a warning of certain researchers being misguided, you could.  If you wanted to read it as certain researchers proposing this concept, you could.  Remember that Pramana has always agreed with what the behaviourists suggest in previous posts.

[Pramana]

My hope with this thread is to invite discussion about whether asexuality could be adopted as an identity to challenge the diagnosis of HSDD. Ultimately, I believe that this question will be settled on the ground, according to whether or not women with low libido choose to go the asexuality route or the HSDD route.

[Autumn Season]

Interesting points, thanks for summing up the studies. I also liked that in your last post here you put a source. ^^ 

[Pramana]

On 5/25/2017 at 8:27 AM, Autumn Season said:

Interesting points, thanks for summing up the studies. I also liked that in your last post here you put a source. ^^ 

Thank you so much! I've attempted to provide a summation of core ideas from queer theory asexuality studies articles that I've been reading.

[TheAP]

Moved from Intersectionality to Asexual Musings and Rantings.

 

TheAP

Intersectionality Moderator

[fuzzipueo]

On 5/22/2017 at 4:17 PM, Pramana said:

Model #1

 

1. Asexual: lack of sexual attraction to other people.

 

Model #2

 

1. Asexual: lack of intrinsic desire for partnered sex.

 

Interesting stuff, though really, when it comes down to it, I prefer practicality over theory any day and I fit both line ones of both models.

[Tofer]

On 5/22/2017 at 3:17 PM, Pramana said:

2. Anti-essentialism: The view that while biological/environmental factors determine your preferences with respect to sexual partners

I don't believe this premise is necessary to anti-essentialism. I'm aware that it is a misconstruction of anti-essentialism to claim that it excludes this premise, but there are forms of anti-essentialism that do not agree with this premise.

 

Further, isn't it the case that there is no scientific consensus to date as to what are the biological and/or environmental causative factors with respect to preference of sexual partners, or even whether the quest for such factors will produce meaningful results?

[Rwkropf]

I admit that OP was TL;DR for me, but I have found that feminism has not been friendly towards me.

 

I have had cases where feminists have shouted at me because I am white, male, cis-gendered, and not being attracted to women. Turns out the fact that I don't lose my mind over women upset some feminists.

 

The anti-feminist movement (especially MGTOW) has actually been for more friendly towards my asexuality than the feminists have been.

[Pramana]

37 minutes ago, Rwkropf said:

I admit that OP was TL;DR for me, but I have found that feminism has not been friendly towards me.

 

I have had cases where feminists have shouted at me because I am white, male, cis-gendered, and not being attracted to women. Turns out the fact that I don't lose my mind over women upset some feminists.

 

The anti-feminist movement (especially MGTOW) has actually been for more friendly towards my asexuality than the feminists have been.

I don't know enough about this side of the issue to comment, but it's an interesting perspective on the matter.

[Pramana]

On 5/26/2017 at 3:03 PM, Tofer said:

I don't believe this premise is necessary to anti-essentialism. I'm aware that it is a misconstruction of anti-essentialism to claim that it excludes this premise, but there are forms of anti-essentialism that do not agree with this premise.

 

Further, isn't it the case that there is no scientific consensus to date as to what are the biological and/or environmental causative factors with respect to preference of sexual partners, or even whether the quest for such factors will produce meaningful results?

My definition of anti-essentialism is specific to how the concept is used by the social constructivist writers on asexuality who I use as sources. You're well to point out that it may have broader uses by other people in other contexts.

Psychologists and sociologists usually assume that asexuality is caused by biological and environmental factors, and there's a fair amount of speculation regarding what those factors might be, but little research to provide evidence one way or the other.

[Tofer]

21 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I've found that psychologists/sociologists writing on asexuality usually assume that it is caused by biological and environmental factors, and there's a fair amount of speculation regarding what those factors might be, but little research to provide evidence one way or the other.

Here are two articles by Brandon Ambrosino, who is neither a psychologist nor a sociologist, but who does discuss scientific research:

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160627-i-am-gay-but-i-wasnt-born-this-way 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality

 

Ambrosino advocates sexual fluidity and argues that the quest to identify a limited number of factors as the cause of an orientation is not helpful. He quotes psychologist Patrick Grzanka: "Limiting our understanding of any complex human experience is always going to be worse than allowing it to be complicated." Ambrosino: "It’s my opinion that sexual desires, like all our desires, shift and re-orient throughout our lives, and that as they do, they often suggest to us new identities."

[HazyWept]

. 

 

[Pramana]

My hope was to article the key decision points between competing academic methodological approaches to the study of asexuality, in the interest of furthering discussion.

[HazyWept]

.

[Pramana]

I haven't taken a position on the matter. As I stated above, my hope with this thread is to develop a better understanding of the key differences between essentialist and social constructivist approaches.

[Rhaenys]

3 hours ago, MaybeIBelongSomewhere said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong @Pramana

 

But I agree with @Flygunn- I believe most of us who reply are making the mistake of assuming Pramana is endorsing one view and putting down another. I'm guilty of this on Pramana's Is Asexuality a Social Construct topic. So in the end I didn't even really answer the topic question I just replied to what stuck out in the readings to me. 

All Pramana is doing is putting out various views in hopes to receive opinions. So even if some of the readings opinion/view annoys you please try not to apply the feelings of annoyance or 'We're bout to start a riot. Imma start a riot' (complements of 2Chains 😋) towards Pramana. Save the pitch forks for the actual authors 😂 

 

 

 

I honestly thought OP had homework or some research thing due that they were cleverly pawning off on us cause those TL:DRs. 

 

I started to major in Gender Studies before I had sense to change. My first year was entirely about feminism. They never talked about asexuality and I doubt they would because mostly tried to push the idea that using your sexuality and sleeping around is empowering and fighting against the patriarchy's oppressive ideals.

[HazyWept]

.

[Guest]

On 2017-5-22 at 11:17 PM, Pramana said:

Motivations:
Preservation of essentialism and the stability criterion – Sexual desire is observed to fluctuate significantly over the course of people’s lives, with many people having periods where they experience little to no sexual desire. And sexual desire levels may be impacted significantly by mental health issues or the use of certain medications. While it has been suggested that in some cases a lifelong lack of sexual desire may satisfy the stability criterion, sexual preferences are far more likely to meet this condition. While sexual desire ebbs and flows in response to a variety of factors, the sorts of people that one is sexual attracted to usually remains relatively constant throughout one’s life.

I disagree with this, as it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what we mean when we say "innate desire for partnered sex". This paragraph is talking about libido, which naturally varies over time for a huge variety of reasons, and different people experience at very different baseline levels. There are also natural differences in libido between men and women. The definition of asexuality as a "lack of innate desire for partnered sex" (which is actually the same as "lack of sexual attraction" according to AVEN's definition of sexual attraction) is not a reference to libido, but an innate desire which remains constant and is not brought about by physical or mental ill health. A sexual person (ie. someone with that innate desire) may be deeply distressed by having a low libido (hence the medications for hyposexual disorder) or still wish that they did want to have when their libido is completely absent.

 

For example my friend who has been battling a serious illness since the age of 26 (now 32). Before becoming ill she had a average libido and enjoyed sex, but the illness and medication completely destroyed her libido, she hasn't had sex in years because she just doesn't have the energy or desire to do so, but she still has the innate desire to have sex, to experience the physical sensations of sex and  connect with another person in that way. As such the lack of libido has made her quite unhappy. Although she has since "got used to it" and "resigned herself to the inevitable" she is still decidedly heterosexual despite not having sex.

 

I have an average libido, which in the past reduced to almost nothing due to depression and then recovered when I recovered, but I have no innate desire for sex and as such am asexual, regardless of my level of libido.

 

TL;DR : These people don't know what they're talking about.

 

As for the rest of the OP... well, TL;DR, but what I did read I disagreed with and  thought was rather silly, but then I'm a biological scientist and thinking that the social sciences are silly comes with the job.

[Pramana]

On 5/27/2017 at 4:25 AM, ohdearIzzy said:

I disagree with this, as it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what we mean when we say "innate desire for partnered sex". This paragraph is talking about libido, which naturally varies over time for a huge variety of reasons, and different people experience at very different baseline levels. There are also natural differences in libido between men and women. The definition of asexuality as a "lack of innate desire for partnered sex" (which is actually the same as "lack of sexual attraction" according to AVEN's definition of sexual attraction) is not a reference to libido, but an innate desire which remains constant and is not brought about by physical or mental ill health. A sexual person (ie. someone with that innate desire) may be deeply distressed by having a low libido (hence the medications for hyposexual disorder) or still wish that they did want to have when their libido is completely absent.

I've never seen "innate desire for partnered sex" employed as a standalone concept in the academic literature on asexuality. I've realized that the notion of "innate desire for partnered sex" as distinct from sexual attraction is peculiar to AVEN, attributable to popular misunderstandings that have arisen on AVEN. However, people who lack an innate desire for partnered sex could still potentially have a non-innate desire for partnered sex, which goes to show that sexual orientation underdetermines people's action preferences.

[Pramana]

On 5/26/2017 at 4:23 PM, Tofer said:

Here are two articles by Brandon Ambrosino, who is neither a psychologist nor a sociologist, but who does discuss scientific research:

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160627-i-am-gay-but-i-wasnt-born-this-way 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality

 

Ambrosino advocates sexual fluidity and argues that the quest to identify a limited number of factors as the cause of an orientation is not helpful. He quotes psychologist Patrick Grzanka: "Limiting our understanding of any complex human experience is always going to be worse than allowing it to be complicated." Ambrosino: "It’s my opinion that sexual desires, like all our desires, shift and re-orient throughout our lives, and that as they do, they often suggest to us new identities."

Thanks for the references!

[gisiebob]

On 05/22/2017 at 4:41 PM, Pramana said:

is that it's oppression whenever a woman's level of sexual desire is pathologized because it's lower than that of her male partner. [( sorry my qoutes are broken)] just wanted to ask if it was oppression in the very much same cases that we see on this site where the males sexual desire does not match expectations?

 

[Pramana]

On 5/27/2017 at 3:11 PM, gisiebob said:

just wanted to ask if it was oppression in the very much same cases that we see on this site where the males sexual desire does not match expectations?

The authors I read focus on women, partly because they are viewing the subject through a feminist lens and partly because it's more common for women to experience lower levels of sexual desire than men and to shade more towards responsive desire than men. However, the literature on responsive desire recognizes that a significant minority of men are primarily response desire types while a significant minority of women are primarily spontaneous desire types. I have also come across some magazine articles and other stories online from women who have higher sex drives than their male partners, and who would like their male partners to be more sexual.

I would think that according to a feminist approach men in those cases would be oppressed provided they feel distress due to their comparatively low sexual desire, and the cause of that distress is pressure from their female partners who want them to be more sexual. I think an argument could be made that men are actually more oppressed than women in this scenario, because of the social stereotype that links virility to masculinity.