Do You Consider Asexuality A Disorder?

[Yatogami]

7 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I don't believe in any one set "human nature".  What's natural is human variance, which means we're all going to choose our own priorities in life.

 

If you ever assume everyone has the same priorities, you're going to be wrong.  So it's better to just... avoid using terms like "human nature", and avoid assuming them.

I would disagree. There are things all humans posess, along with personality quirks. It's more true to say we are all more similar to each other, than different.

[Philip027]

Quote

I would disagree. There are things all humans posess, along with personality quirks.

The only thing all humans possess is a human body.  (And even then, some of us get shafted on that due to things like faulty organs or genetic defects.)

 

There is no one "human nature" you can name that applies to everyone.

[NaianePitzer]

I don't.

[Rawrth]

A bunch of people have made really good and interesting points on this subject. Thank you for your responses! 

 

By the way, I don't think it's a "dumb" question. I was genuinely curious about what other people thought, and if they have ever questioned it themselves. What really stood out to me was the reply that said homosexuality doesn't help us reproduce, but it's not a disorder. So now I think of it as something kind of similar. Asexuals might not reproduce, but not all humans need to reproduce anyway. There are a lot of animals that never finds mates either. So thank you for your responses yet again!  

[Ruru+Saphhy=Garnet]

1 hour ago, Rawrth said:

A bunch of people have made really good and interesting points on this subject. Thank you for your responses! 

 

By the way, I don't think it's a "dumb" question. I was genuinely curious about what other people thought, and if they have ever questioned it themselves. What really stood out to me was the reply that said homosexuality doesn't help us reproduce, but it's not a disorder. So now I think of it as something kind of similar. Asexuals might not reproduce, but not all humans need to reproduce anyway. There are a lot of animals that never finds mates either. So thank you for your responses yet again!  

You're welcome.  If you have anymore questions, feel free to ask us. 

[TheAP]

20 hours ago, Philbo Penten said:

As many have said, a disorder must by definition impair a person's daily life. I don't believe any sexuality (including heterosexual) does this for the vast majority, so no, asexuality is not a disorder by definition.

 

Also, a disorder implies that a person is broken in some way. I am not broken. I am merely different from the masses.

I don't think having a disorder implies that the person is broken. I have autism, which I consider a disorder. It doesn't mean I'm broken, it just means that I have more trouble with some things.

 

I agree with your first point, though. Any negative impact to a person's life from asexuality comes from the pressure to be sexual and a person's insecurity over being different, not asexuality itself. 

[TRexPhilbo]

Just now, TheAP said:

I don't think having a disorder implies that the person is broken. I have autism, which I consider a disorder. It doesn't mean I'm broken

Fair enough. Bad choice of words, sorry about that  

[anzu2snow]

It's definitely not a disorder. I think if it were, so would other sexualities. A disorder is a state of confusion, disarray, something that negatively disrupts you're life, causes distress, keeps you from functioning in day to day life, etc. Nothing to do with sexuality. Sure people might be 'distressed' by the way society treats a sexuality or even gender. That's different. Sadly, asexuality was once thought of as a disorder. So, this subject might feel especially sore to some. Being gay was seen as a disorder, too. Not too long ago. So was being trans. Sometimes the older mental health professionals stick to thinking these are disorders, and try to 'fix' people. It's dangerous.

 

Also, saying one of our main drives as humans is to reproduce, is not exactly true. Many straight people don't want kids or are even sterile. Do they have a disorder? Is something wrong with them? Not only that, but this ignores aces that want and have had kids. A lot of LGBTQ+ people want, can have, and have had kids. (Heck, my parent's a trans woman.) This thinking that they don't want to or somehow can't disturbs me. Their reproductive organs still work like everyone else (also, like everyone else, they could be sterile too), and there are many ways to have their own biological kids. Science is wondrous this way. 

[Brighterside]

Not a disorder, just a nuisance.

[City_Flyer]

I certainly don't consider asexuality as an orientation to be a disorder, just the same as being gay is not a disorder. It's just the way some people are.

 

Of course, many people confuse asexuality with other things, such as celibacy or impotence.

 

There are, of course, disorders that physically or psychologically prevent people from having or enjoying sex. Asexuality as an orientation (or a lack of one) is not in this category.

 

The analogy I like to use is this:

 

Most adults, at least occasionally, drink alcohol. However, some people don't like it. That doesn't mean they are allergic to it, they just don't like it. That puts them in a minority, but doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them. It's just their personal taste.

 

Asexuality can be summed up in similar terms. Most people are heterosexual and enjoy sex with opposite gender. However some people don't. Again, nothing wrong with that, just personal taste.

[Rhaenys]

If it's a disorder I don't want to be cured.

[deltaX]

I don't see asexuality as a disorder.  If reproducing were the only thing that mattered being gay would be a disorder as well, and most people can agree that isn't the case.  Being asexual doesn't seem any more abnormal to me than any other sexual orientation.

[Rawrth]

On 7/31/2017 at 1:12 PM, Brighterside said:

Not a disorder, just a nuisance.

 

On 8/1/2017 at 9:39 AM, Saesha said:

If it's a disorder I don't want to be cured.

 

These are two interesting posts, which seem to bring together two opposing opinions. 

Because if it is a nuisance, wouldn't you want to change? 

Has anyone here ever wished they weren't? 

[in.visible]

1 hour ago, Rawrth said:

 

 

These are two interesting posts, which seem to bring together two opposing opinions. 

Because if it is a nuisance, wouldn't you want to change? 

Has anyone here ever wished they weren't? 

I don't think they're necessarily opposing opinions. I feel like my (a)sexuality being a nuisance too in some situations. Because I believe feeling differently would make my life easier.

Think about gays for example. There are gays who are entirely comfortable about their orientation (Saesha in this metaphor) and people who don't feel so comfortable. It still won't change their orientation. I hope I didn't misinterpret Brighterside's Statement.

[Tos]

I don't consider it a disorder, no, just a natural variation of human sexuality. If you want to look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, I can maybe provide some insight there too.

[City_Flyer]

13 hours ago, Rawrth said:

 

 

These are two interesting posts, which seem to bring together two opposing opinions. 

Because if it is a nuisance, wouldn't you want to change? 

Has anyone here ever wished they weren't? 

To be honest, I'm glad I'm ace. It simplifies my life and allows me to concentrate properly on the things that matter to me.

 

When I came out to a very close friend a few days ago, he asked me whether I was happy and comfortable with my asexuality, and I told him I am.

 

Then he asked me whether I would change my orientation if I could. I told him quite honestly that I would not.

[doggalogga]

On 7/29/2017 at 4:52 AM, asexjoe said:

Dumb question. Of course not.

There are no dumb questions.

 

It creates a discussion. Sure, the inference that it is a disorder may be absolutely refuted (as it pretty much has in this case), but at least it's created a healthy, respectful discussion.

 

I thank the OP for exercising their curiosity. I am sure many others do as well

[Brighterside]

On 08/08/2017 at 9:50 AM, Rawrth said:

 

 

These are two interesting posts, which seem to bring together two opposing opinions. 

Because if it is a nuisance, wouldn't you want to change? 

Has anyone here ever wished they weren't? 

Always nice to know that I can bring interesting discussion to the table. But in answer to your question, yes, I would want to change if given the opportunity. If they invented a pill or drug that could "turn on" my sexuality I'd be very eager to take it. The reason being is that I just want to live a normal life with a traditional marriage with a wife and kids and being asexual really hinders my opportunities to have that and it really gets me down sometimes. It just makes my dating pool almost vanishingly small and it's very difficult to imagine getting together with a girl without imagining the conversation I'll have to have with her at some point telling her that I won't be able to have sex with her which is a dealbreaker for many people. So yeah, that's why it's a nuisance to me and I would choose to change given the option. I'm also well aware that a great deal of my opinions do not line up with the opinions held by the rest of the community so I could say I'm definatley in the minority as far as this discussion goes.

[Laplace]

I only really consider it a disorder if the person doesn't want to be considered asexual. Someone can have an extremely low sex drive and not be asexual; they may want to feel sexual attraction but nothing can spark their interest. Sure, my aceness might distance me slightly from the average person, and I may never really be able to have an intimate relationship. But, those things aren't making me suicidal or severely distressed. Asexuality as an orientation is not a disorder. BUT, the typical characteristics of an asexual (low sex drive, absence of libido, etc.) CAN be symptoms of a disorder if the person actively does not want to identify as asexual.

 

So, asexuality is not a disorder. However, I believe some people can be dissatisfied with characteristics typically associated with asexuality and desire to change, making those characteristics into symptoms of a disorder. It all depends on the subject's feelings.

[MrDane]

"In the world of the blind, the one eyed man is either a gifted man or a freak"

 

if you disrupt or interfere with the order (everybody wants nice sex, it is even placed as aground rule in the hierarchy of needs by Maslow. ) then many will see asexuality as a disorder.

[Sammer Jammers]

Your inherent idea is flawed. A lot of species have gay partners meaning it isn't biologically needed to have sex to reproduce. There are probably many asexual amimals, but there has never been any research in to it so we just don't know yet.

[Philip027]

Quote

A lot of species have gay partners meaning it isn't biologically needed to have sex to reproduce.

I'm... not sure that's the proper conclusion to draw from that

[Sally]

On 7/28/2017 at 1:14 PM, asexjoe said:

It's dumb to ask the question here.

 

One might even regard it as trolling.

No, it isn't trolling.  It was a sincere question, and as such, it wasn't dumb and shouldn't be labeled such.

[AussieIsAce]

well there is like 8 billion people.....so i dont think having 1% of the population not interested sex and the 10% of queer people that mostly likely wont have biological children matters all that much cause theirs basically 90% of the population that will be shagging and making babies. 

 

also how do you know there isnt an asexual cow who just wants to eat grass. you dont know so the argument that its human/ animals nature to shag is dumb because yall dont know what an animals sexual origination is. 

 

PS. is being gay a disorder cause if no why would being asexual be any different. 

[chair jockey]

"Disorder" can mean two things. It can mean that the way someone is makes it difficult for them to function under the conditions that their environment imposes on them. Or it can mean that their nature makes their behavior inconvenient for other people and hard for him to get along with. In both cases the error being made is presupposing that the conditions our environment imposes on us are somehow absolutely right and good and the "disorder" is therefore to be faulted; whereas it's entirely possible that the "disorder" is the right and good way to be, and the environmental conditions that are wrong and inappropriate.