Do you support psychological research on a/sexuality?

[cooliocool]

I have mixed feelings about it. 

 

Pros

• It can increase visibility about asexuality 
• It can help people to learn more about a/sexuality in general. 

Cons

• I don't understand why scientists are interested in figuring out why someone doesn't conform to heteronormativity. Why put a magnifying class on the subject?
• Leads into stereotyping certain groups of people 
• Scientists might try to invalidate/marginalize the existence of queer groups. Science can involving disproving an existence. 
• Sexual orientation is based on whether or not you feel sexual attraction and/or what you feel (or don't feel) sexually attracted to. I don't understand how a person's feelings can be "researched," especially when there isn't any instrument that can accurately (100%) measure "feelings."

 

Sociological research can be done as well. I'm more supportive of sociological research. 

 

What will be the utility of psychological studies? It's also important to know how it will be useful. 

 

Why do people think that sexual orientation has to be validated by science? That's ridiculous.

[God of the Forest]

2 minutes ago, Lemonasculine said:

I have mixed feelings about it. 

 

Pros

• It can increase visibility about asexuality 
• It can help people to learn more about a/sexuality in general. 

Cons

• I don't understand why scientists are interested in figuring out why someone doesn't conform to heteronormativity. Why put a magnifying class on the subject?
• Leads into stereotyping certain groups of people 
• Scientists might try to invalidate/marginalize the existence of queer groups. Science can involving disproving an existence. 
• Sexual orientation is based on whether or not you feel sexual attraction and/or what you feel (or don't feel) sexually attracted to. I don't understand how a person's feelings can be "researched," especially when there isn't any instrument that can accurately (100%) measure "feelings."

 

Sociological research can be done as well. I'm more supportive of sociological research. 

 

 

  ^ That pretty much sums up my feelings on it as well. I think sociological research when done in tandem with biological and anthropological/ethnography is extemely valuable and needed to accurately understand anything properly, at least of this nature. Ya know what I mean? 

[straightouttamordor]

Great post. I think you covered it pretty comprehensively. I don't want to be a "victim" or a circus freak. Just a human being that doesn't care for sex and wants to be left alone about it. The whens, hows and whys are fodder for others to speculate.

[Allegra]

I'm not sure... I do support research in general, because the more we know and understand, the more we can educate. But I agree with the idea that sociological research in this case seems like it would be more helpful, with less potential for damage. Still, a psychologist or psychology student could potentially do a great job researching how asexuality is viewed and understood in the psychology community, what awareness is like, and how to better professionals' understanding and thus make environments safer for asexual clients. That, I would like to see. Of course my ideal researcher(s) would understand and accept asexuality and want to encourage others who may not be aware or may misunderstand to do the same...

[Pramana]

My answer is yes, which will probably be of surprise to no one at this point. Although I think that it should be balanced with sociology and social theory.

[Clumsy Fairy]

Defo yes. 

 

But as soon as they define it 80% of AVEN would scream "FOUL"!!!

 

[Flygunn]

2 hours ago, Lemonasculine said:

Cons

• I don't understand why scientists are interested in figuring out why someone doesn't conform to heteronormativity. Why put a magnifying class on the subject?
• Leads into stereotyping certain groups of people 
• Scientists might try to invalidate/marginalize the existence of queer groups. Science can involving disproving an existence. 
• Sexual orientation is based on whether or not you feel sexual attraction and/or what you feel (or don't feel) sexually attracted to. I don't understand how a person's feelings can be "researched," especially when there isn't any instrument that can accurately (100%) measure "feelings."

 

Sociological research can be done as well. I'm more supportive of sociological research. 

Keep in mind that science is not like religion, it can never disagree with this world because it is all based on facts we can gather from this world.  In fact, in science, nothing can be proven until all other possibilities are disproven.  This is why everything that is an explanation rather than an observation is a theory, because it could potentially be disproven in the future.  Scientists will never be able to say that someone who identifies as asexual is not asexual.  Many different people identify as asexual for many different reasons that can often contradict with each other.  Scientists would not be able to say which reason is the reason for being asexual and the other reasons should invent a new word to identify as.  However scientists could say "this is why certain groups of people exhibit this trait" and they could even give that observation a name.  However those within and outside that specific discovery can still validly identify as asexual.

 

Also, on the subject of why science should put a magnifying glass on asexuality, i would like to reference every single act of discrimination/ignorance related to queer identities and how much those have declined since science started telling those people they were wrong.

[The Dryad]

Hmm I understand all the pros and cons, but on a more personal scale, I want to know more about my own asexuality. And why asexuality exists anyways. On a socio-evolutionary scale, we kinda shouldn't exist- humans are made to be social and procreate, however asexuality is a type of anti-social behavior that creates genetically dead people and lowers the population, so it seems counter-productive for asexuals to exist, (although I guess that could be argued for other groups as well) Life is complicated...

[WinterWanderer]

Research is now performed more ethically than how it used to be done. Things like social stigmas and potential social consequences of studies are now taken into account. All scientific institutions now have institutional review boards (IRBs) that specifically identify possible ethical problems with studies before the studies can even be started. So I don't think that stigmatizing asexuality would be a huge problem. (But of course, there's always chance for human error....)

 

Personally, I tend to support research of all kinds. But then, I'm a bit biased because I'm a scientist.

[Comrade F&F]

3 hours ago, Lemonasculine said:

I have mixed feelings about it. 

 

Pros

• It can increase visibility about asexuality 
• It can help people to learn more about a/sexuality in general. 

Cons

• I don't understand why scientists are interested in figuring out why someone doesn't conform to heteronormativity. Why put a magnifying class on the subject?
• Leads into stereotyping certain groups of people 
• Scientists might try to invalidate/marginalize the existence of queer groups. Science can involving disproving an existence. 
• Sexual orientation is based on whether or not you feel sexual attraction and/or what you feel (or don't feel) sexually attracted to. I don't understand how a person's feelings can be "researched," especially when there isn't any instrument that can accurately (100%) measure "feelings."

 

Sociological research can be done as well. I'm more supportive of sociological research. 

 

 

As a scientist, let me put your fears to rest:

 

1. Scientists are just curious. We have a Code of Ethic to leave social influence outside of the research, because bias views can harm results of the findings. There are no favorites or 'end quota'. It's just curiousity to see how the world works.

2. Stereotyping can happen, but it's primarily due to a lack of communicating what data implies.

3. We won't invalidate it. A: some people identify as asexual. B: What is the cause? Heck, we literally put Newton and Tesla on pedestals, two individuals who might have been asexual. you think we'd invalidate them?

4. Yeaaaaah sexual attraction's tricky to research on. Part of the challenge is trying to quantify a qualitative data.

 

I'm not worried about scientists studying asexuality - or any other identity. Ethical methods have evolved alongside science. Biased research gets thrown out very quickly. The main concern is trying to explain what the findings mean, and pray they're not misinterpreted.

[Perissodactyla]

I'm in favor off all types of investigations into questions related to asexuality, assuming they are well-designed.

 

[Flygunn]

2 hours ago, The Dryad said:

Hmm I understand all the pros and cons, but on a more personal scale, I want to know more about my own asexuality. And why asexuality exists anyways. On a socio-evolutionary scale, we kinda shouldn't exist- humans are made to be social and procreate, however asexuality is a type of anti-social behavior that creates genetically dead people and lowers the population, so it seems counter-productive for asexuals to exist, (although I guess that could be argued for other groups as well) Life is complicated...

Two counter-points to consider:

 

a. Humans have transcended a lot of "natural" behaviours.  Humans have the longest developmental  period because we can gain so much more from being taught than we can from genetic directives.  Due to this, the vast majority of our behaviour is shaped not by what we as organisms are designed, but as how we as a society teach.  The largest example of this would be the fact that we mate at pretty much any time of the year, rather than just Spring.

 

b.  Is it truly that counter-intuitive for a quickly overpopulating species to have 10% of its population not be only interested in the sex that will bring us new generations?  One could argue that this is similar to the way our appendix has evolved to become useless later on in life.  Just as we no longer need to filter out dirt and other particles we cook out of our food, we no longer need rapid expansion, we can fare better in our longevity if we reproduce less. 

 

[LenaLuthor]

Yes, if the subjects being researched are treated with respect and dignity. The research would need to be of high quality as well.

[Skycaptain]

The psychology of sex and sexuality has long been a study topic. Studying asexuality from a psychological perspective is simply a continuation of this. Much better that it is done now, when results can be properly peer reviewed, and there's more opportunity to debunk biased research. 

I'm totally in favour of in depth research 

[Roardova]

No, not everyone is the same.  Not even in a generalization.  I recently had a stranger tell me that Zakia on Sense 8 season two said something pansexual natured & not asexual.  Okay, whatever you say.  But my entire life, I haven't fit in any category.  A lot of people refer to me as the unicorn because of my differentials; but if I don't feel sexual desire, then I consider myself asexual.  There's really no input psychologically because of it.  I don't function nor do I think like anyone else; hell, the other day I was thinking about why I dislike humans so much.  It's because I can't find anyone with the same thought processes of me; so no, I don't believe psychology research about asexuality.

[Busrider]

If I felt sure about my asexuality, I would participate more happily in research.

11 hours ago, Lemonasculine said:

Cons

• I don't understand why scientists are interested in figuring out why someone doesn't conform to heteronormativity. Why put a magnifying class on the subject?
• ...
• Scientists might try to invalidate/marginalize the existence of queer groups. Science can involving disproving an existence. 

AFAIK science has to play with open cards "We asked (insert number & specification of picking scheme) the following stupid questions. (list) and deduce (thesis)" - So whatever gets deduced can be debated and is way easier to attack than shiny title's homegrown prejudices.

Let them research! - More understanding should lead to more acceptance. - Do you really fancy dealing with cis het redneck attitudes everywhere?

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Yes, I want to know all the things.

[cooliocool]

22 hours ago, King of the Forest said:

  ^ That pretty much sums up my feelings on it as well. I think sociological research when done in tandem with biological and anthropological/ethnography is extemely valuable and needed to accurately understand anything properly, at least of this nature. Ya know what I mean? 

Yeah I know what you mean. I think so too because it sounds more useful than purely psychological studies. 

[God of the Forest]

Just now, Lemonasculine said:

Yeah I know what you mean. I think so too because it sounds more useful than purely psychological studies. 

 Exactly, like look at something from all angles so to speak  

[Flygunn]

2 hours ago, King of the Forest said:

2 hours ago, Lemonasculine said:

Yeah I know what you mean. I think so too because it sounds more useful than purely psychological studies. 

 Exactly, like look at something from all angles so to speak  

To clarify: the difference between sociological and psychological is that psychology focuses purely on the individual and how stimuli/events can affect their behaviour, etc.  Sociology focuses on an individual's impact on a group and vice versa.  Sociology does not account for everything, it is just focusing on a different angle.  Essentially, sociologists study our servers and psychologists study our computers.  We cannot have just a Psychological experiment because all of the social sciences use each other as cross-references.  The most famous experiments are rarely just one field, instead it incorporates practically all of them unless they set up the experiment to isolate some fields for anti-bias.

 

 

[Correner]

Research everything.

[NotAUnicorn]

I'd say to give it research (mabe not in the way people think of it)because:

If you were to find that animals expserance Acesexualllty(as animal have been found to be of other sexuallities then hetaro) then we take away the argument that it's "not naturel". You could find out a lot about sexuallty (as to make a comparacin to other sexuallities) but to make sure to include all genders.

But the problem is how science is viewed within society, as it is only given value if it can serve a political or commercial agenda. Much less psychology which is tied down by what I've previously mentioned and this idea of offending others .

 

 

[cinary]

I love science and I'll always support it. Always.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Totally in favour of research , anything to shed light on asexuality is fine by me. I hope we live in an era where research is carried out for the furtherance of knowledge and not to pigeonhole people by 'diagnosis'.

[SparkyCat13]

Completely in favor, but I've always been really into psychology and love learning how people work, whether it really matters or not.

[gHuddo]

I understand why a lot of people are worried about this kinda stuff, but to me it seems logical that there would be psychological reason behind all the sexualities. There are already theories for why homosexual relations are a thing (basically to be fosters for orphans and for pop control) and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a mix of those elements for other sexualities. Even if it is the result of genes, or a mutation that has happened, that is the cause of so many differences in humanity, many of these mutations are viewed no different  such as red heads- ok not a good example.... such as people with blue eyes. Psychology is simply the study of behaviour, not necessarily abnormal behaviour. If handled correctly, it could be a great way to help people in the LGBTQ+ community to feel validated, and give 'proof' that there is more than one sexuality, and that its not a choice and definitely not a mental illness.

[Larkaloke]

Yes, I think it's best to understand as much as possible about everything.

[iff]

@Lemonasculine

 

This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organization, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to re-start new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them.

  

iff, Census Forum Moderator