Jump to content

asexuality and health


Recommended Posts

...That's an odd question.

Presumably no, it's not unhealthy. Since we're less compulsed to engage in relations that could earn us venereal diseases.

Say. You wanna make an introduction, mysterious newbie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i asked about the consequences of asexuality in humans health and i did not understand your answer.

i think the normal healthy people that they never had a sex experience are few as sometime in their life have had experienced it.

i found my self happy without any sex or rare sex experience for a time up to 2-3 years each time and with the passing of time the peaks of desire dissapearing.

by the way having sex once every 2-3 years and more is that asexuality? 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we seem to be experiencing communication problems here. I may just be suffering from sleep deprivation, but this...

i think the normal healthy people that they never had a sex experience are few as sometime in their life have had experienced it.

...made no sense to me whatsoever.

Why should asexuality be considered unhealthy to begin with?

You can have sex and still be asexual. Asexual means you're just not naturally attracted to people in a sexual way. You can still have sex with them, even if you don't have the desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting sex and actually having sex are two different things though.

I didn't say that if you want sexual relations, you can still be asexual. I did say that you can have sex and still be asexual - because you can do things you don't desire to do, like if you choose to have sex just to please your significant other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I THINK this responds to what you're asking, let me know:

A) its' healthier in the sense that we don't have to worry about STDs, but we're not necessarily "purer" in any physical, mental or spiritual sense (IMHO.)

B) there's no medical basis to the idea that people NEED to experience orgasm occassionally to be healthy, far as I know. And I've done a decent amount of research in medical sexology..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Julie, I understood what you were saying, I was just responding to olefsen saying "by the way having sex once every 2-3 years and more is that asexuality?" Most of olefsen's post I didn't quite get though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Old-timey voice over*

And so, the AVENites had learned the dangers of miscommunication. What wacky adventures await them next? Tune in next time, same AVEN time, same AVEN channel!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to AVEN, olefsen :D

As for health: I do not believe there are any health problems with being asexual. I would also add, however, that trying to make yourself be what you are not, might lead to health problems, but not because you asexual. Another thing is that if someone is constantly told by society that they are *wrong* in who they are and are told they need to change by society, then one's mental health could be hurt, which could affect one's physical health. Asexuality didn't cause this health problem, society and it's pressures did, if society was more accepting, that would have been avoided. This is all just a hypothesis for me, I am not an expert :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is definately a slight tangent from the conversation but it would be interesting to look at the health of asexuals.

i know there are health books for lesbians. perhaps in the future there will be an asexuals guide to health.

one thing, i heard awhile back for lesbians had something to do with female reproductive health. apparently, if you have hetero sex too often, you are at risk of contracting the hpv virus/cervical cancer. well, i read in that same article that no hetero sex can also put you at risk for other problems (i wish i could remember what they are now). i'm not sure if this was some ploy to get lesbians to quite their lifestyles or if this is a bona fide concern. unfortunately, i never researched it further and never read the lesbian health book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
no hetero sex can also put you at risk for other problems

Hmm. That article sounds like a big steaming load, to me. Any sort of unprotected sex runs the risk of sexually transmitted infections. I sincerely doubt it's linked with cervical cancer, but knowing nothing of medical science, I suppose I can't say for sure.

I can't see at all why not having any sort of sex could be detrimental to one's physical health, particularly for women. How on earth could vaginal sex improve one's health?

Hell, even if it meant developing some bizarre disorder, I STILL wouldn't have sex to save my life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i know that cervical cancer/hpv virus is related to an std. i wasn't contesting that but i was contesting how possible it is that if you don't have sex it would put you at risk for other diseases. now i guess i have to research it! :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome olefson.

There are some people who believe that you should let female animals go through one heat or have one litter/baby in order to make them a better pet. I don't think the same thing holds true for humans though. I'm sure not going to be one to test it.

As for the sharing of self-satisfaction stories...not here, please! We've already got Monkey-Doo the troll telling us about his/her self-satisfaction experiences, I'm sure there's a thousand communities that are eager to hear from exhibitionists. Maybe there's one www.gofuckyourself.com or something. I beg of you, please be mature and spare us the details. They'd be wasted on us anyway 'coz they bore the living shit out of asexual people and only make you look like some kind of twisted, pimple faced teenager who can't get a date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*waves to new person* Hallo!

In response to cijay's comment about animals and heat cycles and lettin them have one before spaying/neutering... It's actually a bad idea to do this. They're likely to get pregnant and even one pregnancy can lower the lifespan and increase the risk of cancers and other diseases in cats and dogs (and I assume other creatures) The only reason it might be good is to make sure they are fully mature before removing the hormone producing gonads, but I've seen plenty of animals fixed long before their first cycle who lived long, healthy, productive lives, so I say get them fixed ASAP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A) its' healthier in the sense that we don't have to worry about STDs, but we're not necessarily "purer" in any physical, mental or spiritual sense (IMHO.)

I am purer than all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been many articles about how lesbians (or women who never become pregnant) are at higher risk for various female related illnesses. I never pay much attention to it because everyone has to die of something and having sex with a man is no guarantee you *won't* get something.

Also lesbians have a *much* higher rate of brest cancer, but that's because they are less likely to have ob-gyn exams b/c they don't have sex with men and don't see a need to go to the dr.

Cate

Link to post
Share on other sites

In responce to animals again (I know off topic...): My aunt, who is a vet, does have all of her cats neutered/spayed, and does recommend it, however, when dealing with my grandfather's (female) dog they opted not to have her spayed, but to be very careful to keep males away from her when she was in heat, as spayed females tend to become less energetic, thus will more likely gain weight which they should not...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I think it's a load of shit, too, not getting animals fixed, that is. I don't know who came up with that theory about it being good to let them go through first heat/litter, I just thought maybe they managed to twist it around to make it apply to humans aswell. Hey if there are people who believe it in dogs, they'd be just as likely to believe it in humans. I always love it when people ask "how you would like to be spayed?" I get to say "actually, I am."

I think the point about lesbians and breast cancer is pretty accurate, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage was higher in cervical and ovarian too because they're not getting pelvic exams, not taking pregnancy tests etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the lesbians and higher rates of those sorts of things makes sense because they're the result of a decision (not to visit the doctor) rather than saying, 'Oh, because you don't have penetrative sex with a man you're going to get something horrible and die.' THAT sounds like something out of the dark ages.

Cate

Link to post
Share on other sites
THAT sounds like something out of the dark ages.

Thine humors run ill! Yea, get thou to a priest and be bled, such that the Devil shalt bewitch thee no longer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Me thinks ye priests be misogynists with offal betwist thy ears.'

Cate

Link to post
Share on other sites

*chuckle* slightly off topic again... I know more about animals than I do humans.

Our female dog was spayed when she was a pup- as are all our cats, and it never effected their 'activity level'. Not until she got arthritis in her hips and that slowed her down in her old age. I think the only reason an unspayed female dog might be more 'active' is that they go out looking for mates- in a household less diligent than the one you spoke of. I know unneutered males are certainly more active, and extremely ingenuitive when it comes to getting out of their yard and into another person's where a female is in heat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i assume that living in a society as an ordinary member is difficult to stay out of sex for long time without any health consequenses

by the way what is the average age the members in the community?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Olefsen: we had just such a poll on ages. Go here: http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewt...1846&highlight=

Anyway, I take every opportunity to talk about Fluffy!! Allow me to share with you! Fluffy's had two litters of puppies (5 in one and 4 in another) in her much younger days but she was eventually spayed. She is now 17 and as obnoxious as ever, even with canine cognitive dysfunction, arthritis, displaced knee cap, etc. She's sleeping right now. ^_^ The other four animals in my house--I only claim the two cats--have all been spayed/neutered while they were young before going into heat.

Sometimes I think about that argument you mentioned Cijay--people asking if it's right to have animals be spayed/neutered. But I figure animals don't have the same rational thought processes and self-control as humans (well, some humans) so it's not really responsible to let "nature take its course" unless you're going to provide for all the resulting puppies/kittens. Besides, maybe they don't like being slaves to their animal instinct any more than we would want to be! Anyway, what do you think?

Oh, back on topic, I've heard about the women who have borne children having less breast cancer...but I figure it's kind of a pro/con situation. It'd be silly to have a kid just to lower your risks of breast cancer. : p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...