Nano10877 Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 First of all, I don't mean any disrespect to anyone here, however upon hearing about the idea of asexuality I felt I needed to say this. Just so you know I'm definately NOT an asexual. I'm a man, and I'm definately attracted to women. I'm also, however, a bit weird in that I was born without a pituitary gland. For those of you who aren't up on human biology, the pituitary gland is known as the master gland. It's sort of an on off switch for all the other glands in the body (including the testes and ovaries). So I have to take Testosterone (among other things) since I won't produce it naturally. Now if I were to stop taking testosterone (and I have tried it before, for a short time) I lose almost all interest in sex. So when I see people deciding they are asexual, it worries me that many may have a hormonal imbalance. I looked through the FAQ and didnt see anything mentioning this possibility, if I missed something forgive me and I will go away :). I would suggest that anyone who doesn't have any sex drive (especially someone who isn't even interested in masturbation) to mention this to their doctor and make sure that all your hormone levels are normal. Now I know some of you may be thinking "Why do I need to take a bunch of hormones? I don't like sex, and I'm perfectly happy!" That's true, and there's no reason you have to. However human beings were shaped by evolution to have sex (doesn't mean thay have to. They were also shaped by evolution to die at about 40, if not sooner), and a lack of interest in sex may be a symptom of a serious condition (especially if it's fairly sudden). I guess that's it for now. I just wanted to be sure you guys know that your lack of sexual interest MAY be physiological instead of an active life choice. Again no disrespect meant and if I offended anyone I'm sorry it wasn't my intent. Marc DeMarco Link to post Share on other sites
VivreEstEsperer Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 I can see where you are coming from in some of the things you said in your post and think you are way off base in others. Still, I appreciate the intent to help. I think that for people who are perfectly happy not having to deal with a sex life, there is absolutely no reason to try to fix it. I don't think there's any reason to have say 2% more sexual people in the world, lord knows procreation, or other excuses people use to denounce gay people (to draw a parallel) isn't going to suffer. I have thought before myself about the whole hormones thing, especially after reading a book that carried a somewhat similar message to what you're saying. I think some people here have gotten perfect bills of health on their hormone levels. But again, it all comes down to whether you're happy being asexual or not. Out of curiousity, if you are not asexual, then how did you happen to come upon this site and why (if you were) were you looking for it? Not to imply that we don't welcome you're questions, I'm just interested. Kate Link to post Share on other sites
Artemis Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 That's a good point, Nano, and very important for people who do have hormone problems (after all, untreated pituitary failure will make a person seriously ill and can eventually be fatal due to lack of vital things like thyroid and steroid hormones, although survial without sex hormones is possible). On the other hand, it's extremely rare to have loss of sex drive as the only symptom of a hormone disorder (there tend to be symptoms of lack of sex hormones e.g. loss of body/facial hair, and symptoms of other hormone deficiencies), and it's more common in older people than those who tend to inhabit this board. Link to post Share on other sites
Nano10877 Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 I can see where you are coming from in some of the things you said in your post and think you are way off base in others. Still, I appreciate the intent to help. I think that for people who are perfectly happy not having to deal with a sex life, there is absolutely no reason to try to fix it. I don't think there's any reason to have say 2% more sexual people in the world, lord knows procreation, or other excuses people use to denounce gay people (to draw a parallel) isn't going to suffer. I have thought before myself about the whole hormones thing, especially after reading a book that carried a somewhat similar message to what you're saying. I think some people here have gotten perfect bills of health on their hormone levels. But again, it all comes down to whether you're happy being asexual or not. If they have had it checked, and still feel no need for sex then it probably is just a matter of being their sexual identity (after all if you can have bisexual's, homosexuals and heterosexuals I guess it makes a kind of sense that there would be asexuals). As to if your happy the way you are, why should you check? Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's just say that due to a hormone problem I wasn't able to taste food, and didn't ever have any kind of food cravings. I am able to use vitamin supplements and a tasteless milkshake concoction in place of food. Now this gives me many advantages. I don't have to worry about washing dishes, cooking, taking time to eat, etc. I wouldn't understand what all the fuss was about, and why so many people would make themselves fat by eating too much. But I assume most of you (like most people) do enjoy eating, and wouldn't want to give it up, despite the inherent advantages. Personally I see sex in much the same way. It's a complicated, messy affair, but I wouldn't want to turn it off. I regard a lack of interest in sex the way you would (probably) regard someone who couldn't taste anything. If all that person had to do was take a pill to make him taste I would advise him/her to give it a try. Just my two cents, I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do. If your happy and don't wanna try it (if theres even anything to try) more power to you. Out of curiousity, if you are not asexual, then how did you happen to come upon this site and why (if you were) were you looking for it? Not to imply that we don't welcome you're questions, I'm just interested.Kate Well actually I just found some information on Asperger's syndrome (a mild form of autism) and I'm pretty sure I have it. I suspect a lot of autistics/asperger's tend to be asexual, and that's where I found the link. Being as I said a fairly sexual person myself I found the idea a bit strange at first, so I read the faq, and not seeing my particular objection being raised, thought I'd throw in my thoughts. Marc Link to post Share on other sites
Nano10877 Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 That's a good point, Nano, and very important for people who do have hormone problems (after all, untreated pituitary failure will make a person seriously ill and can eventually be fatal due to lack of vital things like thyroid and steroid hormones, although survial without sex hormones is possible). On the other hand, it's extremely rare to have loss of sex drive as the only symptom of a hormone disorder (there tend to be symptoms of lack of sex hormones e.g. loss of body/facial hair, and symptoms of other hormone deficiencies), and it's more common in older people than those who tend to inhabit this board. Actually not as rare as you might think, especially in women. A LOT of women out there have a deficiency in testosterone, which can lead to lack of sex drive, and not just older women. Unfortunately I don't recall where I read about the study so I can't point you to it, but I do remember it saying that between 10 and 20 percent of women have either sexual dysfunction or just lack of interest due to testosterone indeficiency. Even in men sometimes this may not neceassarily show up through lack of body hair, etc but it's more unusual. Again especially if you have no desire to experience sexual sensations, that to me at least points to some kind of probably chemical imbalance. If you have no attraction to people, but still find the need to masturbate, etc then it's probably just your orientation (or lack thereof). Again you may ask "why should I bother if I'm perfectly happy?" and I guess all I can say is that if it were me I'd at least wanna try it and see what all the hubbub was about :). But I'm me and your you and if you aren't intersted that's OK too. Marc Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Hmmm..interesting. Perhaps it is hormonal, but I for one don't care. It's only a problem if it's bad for you, right? Nano, I enjoyed reading your post, very informative. I never new that such a thing was possible, but then again, anything's possible. Link to post Share on other sites
nemesis Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Hm, that is interesting. As far is I know I'm perfectly (if we ignore my allergies and slight dyslexia) healthy and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites
coralleane Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I guess all I can say is that if it were me I'd at least wanna try it and see what all the hubbub was about . By that reasoning, I should probably also start drinking heavily and getting hung over, taking drugs, smoking, beating people up... Okay, so maybe I *do* like the idea of the last one. ;) Link to post Share on other sites
Nano10877 Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 I guess all I can say is that if it were me I'd at least wanna try it and see what all the hubbub was about . By that reasoning' date=' I should probably also start drinking heavily and getting hung over, taking drugs, smoking, beating people up... Okay, so maybe I *do* like the idea of the last one. ;)[list'] I suppose if you followed NOTHING but that reasoning :). But there's lot's of other reasonable idea's (like not hurting yourself or other's) that would pretty much preclude doing any of the above. Marc Link to post Share on other sites
coralleane Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I suppose if you followed NOTHING but that reasoning :). But there's lot's of other reasonable idea's (like not hurting yourself or other's) that would pretty much preclude doing any of the above. On the other hand, sex could also hurt myself and the other party. Either physically - STD's, for instance - or emotionally. On the other hand, if I chain smoke in my own house, the only person I'm going to be hurting is myself... if I drink heavily in my house, ditto... So therefore, it could be argued that drinking or smoking is the better option. ;) ~Coral Link to post Share on other sites
VivreEstEsperer Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I very much like your reasoning Coral :) There's a hell of a lot less danger in terms of consequences of tasting than consequences of sexual activity! I know it was only an analogy, but still. Kate Link to post Share on other sites
Skiddaloxx Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 to a boy named Nano... I come here very rarely, but when i do, i am astouned how intelligent, life-loving, energetic and quirky the people in here are! They are fantastic! Every cell of them, even they might be amoebas consisting of only one cell! ;) I cannot really see your point in refering to asexuality as a "chemical imbalance", which implies that "something's not right". What is your real intention? Do you want people here to feel inferior or not normal? Sex is not necessary in life! Unlike food, water, air and sleep. I am sure it is great fun for most people, but there is really no need for you to "save asexuals". Many said that homosexuality and bisexuality exist because of a bodily chemical imbalance, and if I was to believe that, i would be wasting my money on a lot of shrinks or doctors trying to "fix it". The fourth sexual option is just as respectable as the other 3, and btw...what would you say if i told you that i am a mix between bi and a? Skiddaloxx Link to post Share on other sites
Skiddaloxx Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 O and START YOUR ENGINES!!!!!! Screeeeam if you want to go spunky, alright?! (what am i writing here?!? ok, go to bed Skid, you are being silly! lol) :twisted: Link to post Share on other sites
Eta Carinae Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I cannot really see your point in refering to asexuality as a "chemical imbalance", which implies that "something's not right". What is your real intention? Do you want people here to feel inferior or not normal? To be fair to him, I think he was just trying to be helpful. Unfortunately, he was doing so by telling us something most of already know, and have heard before, so naturally a few people's hackles went up. Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Maybe it is a chemical imbalance, but I think everything happens for a reason so I won't try to change it :) This may sound a bit crazy, but I see it as a gift. Link to post Share on other sites
Artemis Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Actually not as rare as you might think, especially in women. A LOT of women out there have a deficiency in testosterone, which can lead to lack of sex drive, and not just older women. Unfortunately I don't recall where I read about the study so I can't point you to it, but I do remember it saying that between 10 and 20 percent of women have either sexual dysfunction or just lack of interest due to testosterone indeficiency. I'm not convinced by the figure of 10-20% - does this relate to all women, women in the authors' study group, women requesting treatment for sexual dysfunction etc? And what is their definition of sexual dysfunction? I would like to read the article, if you can remember where it was. From what I've read of the medical research at the moment there is still no real consensus on what are "normal" testosterone levels in women of different ages (they decrease after the menopause). In studies where the researchers have found women with what they regarded as a testosterone deficiency, lack of sex drive was not the only symptom, the women also felt tired and generally unwell, all these symptoms being improved by testosterone. It's also the case in the research that women affected by a lack of testosterone tend to be menopausal/post-menopausal, suffer from premature ovarian failure, have had hysterectomy, or have some other medical problem that affects their hormone production. I think what tends to happen is that some people take this kind of research and start applying it to "normal" people, in the way that there are lots of men who take Viagra to "improve" their sex life when they don't actually suffer from impotence and therefore there's no medical reason for them to take it. So I think testosterone is going to be something that women who don't really need it are going to start taking for the same reasons. It's also worth mentioning that there are no long term studies of how safe it is for women to take testosterone, and it does have some side-effects. Giving testosterone to anybody, regardless of their starting level, would have the effect of increasing sex drive (except I think there is somebody on here who tried it and didn't get that effect, so it obviously doesn't work for everyone), but it wouldn't necessarily mean that they had a low level to start with. I'm always very wary of things like this, testosterone was once promoted as a "cure" for what was once thought of as the "disease" of homosexuality, and it now seems to be the "cure" for the "disease" of female sexual dysfunction. Not that I'd disagree with the existence of female sexual dysfunction, but I think society promotes unrealistic expectations about sex (for both men and women) and there are people of both sexes are starting feel that their (probably "normal" - whatever that is) sex lives aren't good enough and they need a pill to sort it out. I supose it's the same with a lot of things - you can get diet pills that are supposed to make you lose weight, pills to give you more energy or make you "happier" even if you aren't suffering from depression. Society seems to want "a pill" to fix all kinds of problems, and promotes unrealistic expectations about how your life "ought" to be and how it can be fixed by simply taking a pill. But I stand by what I said earlier, that for people with a real hormone problem treatment is important, I just think that the majority of people here don't fall into that category. I'm with Gorax, I kind of see my asexuality as a gift, it's not always a wonderful thing to have, but I'd rather be like this than not. :D Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 If you tried to change yourself, you would not be true to yourself. That's why even if I could, I would not change my asexuality. It would be wrong. If you are not true to yourself, dishonor. But then, that's how I was brought up. Link to post Share on other sites
Legolas Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Amen man I was born this way and should things change on their own (if ever ) then ok but I will not force myself to be what I am not . Alex Link to post Share on other sites
Plasmatica Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Eh, for me, I don't think I have a hormonal imbalance and I've never had a test come out that would indicate such. I'm happy being an asexual, so there's really no reason for me to try and "fix it". It's kind of like asknig someone the cause of them being straight....but most people wouldn't hear that question because it's the "normal" thing to be. Link to post Share on other sites
VivreEstEsperer Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Hear, hear inkburrow :) Kate Link to post Share on other sites
Pete Posted June 21, 2003 Share Posted June 21, 2003 So I know this was a dead thread. And as much as I'd really like to talk Asperger's with Nano 'cause I think its a larger determinant in my personality than my sexual orientation, he's probably long gone back to southern California or whereever the rock was that he crawled out from under.... BUT, I heard about a great new book out called Y: The Descent of Man in which the author discusses all sorts of great squishy questions about hormones and *<squishy>sexual</squishy> development. Including a very interesting tidbit about testosterone being quite a potent poison. In fact he reviews the stats of several studies conducted on sexual criminals from the early to mid 20th century. At that time, those men were being castrated. Turns out that losing their testosterone extended their lives an average of 13 years! The author points out that these are better results than the difference between lifelong smokers and non smokers! For the curious: Y: the Descent of Man by Steve Jones Published by Little Brown, 280pp. * from my new XML tag set. Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 my asexuality isn't a hormonal problem. it's a lack of interest in all things sexual. Link to post Share on other sites
NotDisclosed Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 So when I see people deciding they are asexual, it worries me that manymay have a hormonal imbalance. I looked through the FAQ and didnt see anything mentioning this possibility, if I missed something forgive me and I will go away :). I would suggest that anyone who doesn't have any sex drive (especially someone who isn't even interested in masturbation) to mention this to their doctor and make sure that all your hormone levels are normal. Now I know some of you may be thinking "Why do I need to take a bunch of hormones? I don't like sex, and I'm perfectly happy!" That's true, and there's no reason you have to. However human beings were shaped by evolution to have sex (doesn't mean thay have to. They were also shaped by evolution to die at about 40, if not sooner), and a lack of interest in sex may be a symptom of a serious condition (especially if it's fairly sudden). I guess that's it for now. I just wanted to be sure you guys know that your lack of sexual interest MAY be physiological instead of an active life choice. Again no disrespect meant and if I offended anyone I'm sorry it wasn't my intent. Marc DeMarco ....and if indeed a percentage, do have a hormone inbalance isn't that also shaped by evolution following the lines of your comments Link to post Share on other sites
Artemis Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 I just wanted to be sure you guys know that your lack of sexual interest MAY be physiological instead of an active life choice. I doubt that most people on here would regard being asexual as an active lifestyle choice - celibacy is a choice, asexuality doesn't seem to be. Sorry to be pedantic(it really irritated me when I noticed this), but I think the original poster here should have written "pathological" which is not normal, rather than physiological, which is. I would regard my asexuality as being "physiological", in the same way that having periods is physiological - it's a part of the way my body normally functions - physiological things are normal. I've also heard that testosterone shortens lifespan (it's been known for ages that women live longer than men). Did anybody in the UK see that documentary a few weeks ago on it? It went on about how great testosterone was for about the first two three quarters of the program, and had all these men and women saying how much their lives had improved on it, and how they felt like they would live to 120 etc.etc. In the last bit of the program they revealed the side effects - aggression, masculinization of female patients, reduced life expectancy, increased risk-taking behaviour, dangerous driving, the fact that despite the testosterone, one woman hadn't saved her marriage because even though she was now more interested in sex, she still didn't like her husband etc. etc. It inspired me to come up with a far better idea than giving testosterone to everyone - why not reduce everybody's testosterone levels? Just think - reduced crime, better driving, increased life expectancy, people are more calm, cooperative, rational etc!! :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
orderinchaos Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 While we don't know what causes asexuality in humans, it's a fair thing to say in an individual, it'd be a random pick of hormonal, medical, psychological, physiological and biological (and personality) and environmental factors. Some people may be only one of those, others might be all of them. Hell, we don't even know what causes homosexuality yet (despite occasional claims to have found a "gay gene" or whatever) and there's evidence which suggests that there's in fact more than one cause for that. It's a question I think we'll still be arguing about in 50 or 100 years. Celibates, meanwhile, have made an active moral decision out of guilt, fear, religious intention, career or a variety of other reasons. Some believe sex is evil or wrong, and have the need to do it, but a moral complex every time they act on that need. Others choose to join the priesthood, commit their lives to a variety of causes (humanitarian for example) or whatever and see sexual involvement with anyone as a hindrance to their work. Others are actually gay but don't want to act on it. Other reasons could include irrational (or rational!) fears about STDs or physical harm from sexual activity. We didn't make a life choice. We just are. Unlike gay people, who in many cases wish they were something other than gay, we are actually opened up to all sorts of possibilities by our sexual orientation. The only thing of course is the loneliness issue, but I think as the understanding of asexuality spreads and more people identify with it, as with the gay community a couple of decades ago it will become possible to find similarly-oriented/minded partners or even life partners. As some have said already, polyamory is a possibility for some. Association with celibate and hyposexual people increases the field. Those who wish to can either birth or adopt kids, and thus have a legacy. Even the religious right can't find a reason to hate us on moral grounds. I mean, I think we've got it pretty good :) why should we change just cos people think we're abnormal? how happy are they? (Sorry, I'm in a happyish, rant mode tonight :P hehe) Link to post Share on other sites
ogbg Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 Guess I'll throw my two bits in, even if it looks like the discussion's over :D 1 bit: I guess all I can say is that if it were me I'd at least wanna try it and see what all the hubbub was about Everybody has different viewpoints on this, but quite frankly, I'm revolted by the idea of sticking that place-down-there against another person's place-down-there!! If I was curious about it in the least, I MIGHT think of trying it just to see what it's about, but I'm not, so I won't. I think I'll just stay in my happily nonsexual petri dish for the time being :P hee hee hee 2 bit: when I see people deciding they are asexual... Somebody already mentioned this, but you can't decide to be asexual. You can only decide to be celibate :roll: I know as a fact that I never consciously decided "I'm not interested in sex!" It's always been that way. And by the way... If asexuality is a hormonal imbalance, I'm darned glad it exists!! Why? Because AVEN's full of the coolest people I've ever had the fortune to meet online!! :D (gives everybody a bear hug!!) I still haven't gotten over the euphoria of finding this site!! You all rock!!! WHOOPIE!!!!!! :D :D :D But that was all I had to say, so... ah... I think I'll just shut up now :shock: lol Link to post Share on other sites
whirlygirl Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 as a friend said to me once in school each guy should be made to be put on female hormones for 1 week, then they can see it feels to have mood swings I just wanted to be sure you guys know that your lack of sexual interest MAY be physiological instead of an active life choice. I doubt that most people on here would regard being asexual as an active lifestyle choice - celibacy is a choice, asexuality doesn't seem to be. Sorry to be pedantic(it really irritated me when I noticed this), but I think the original poster here should have written "pathological" which is not normal, rather than physiological, which is. I would regard my asexuality as being "physiological", in the same way that having periods is physiological - it's a part of the way my body normally functions - physiological things are normal. I've also heard that testosterone shortens lifespan (it's been known for ages that women live longer than men). Did anybody in the UK see that documentary a few weeks ago on it? It went on about how great testosterone was for about the first two three quarters of the program, and had all these men and women saying how much their lives had improved on it, and how they felt like they would live to 120 etc.etc. In the last bit of the program they revealed the side effects - aggression, masculinization of female patients, reduced life expectancy, increased risk-taking behaviour, dangerous driving, the fact that despite the testosterone, one woman hadn't saved her marriage because even though she was now more interested in sex, she still didn't like her husband etc. etc. It inspired me to come up with a far better idea than giving testosterone to everyone - why not reduce everybody's testosterone levels? Just think - reduced crime, better driving, increased life expectancy, people are more calm, cooperative, rational etc!! :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
orderinchaos Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 And by the way... If asexuality is a hormonal imbalance, I'm darned glad it exists!! Why? Because AVEN's full of the coolest people I've ever had the fortune to meet online!! :D (gives everybody a bear hug!!) I still haven't gotten over the euphoria of finding this site!! You all rock!!! WHOOPIE!!!!!! :D :D :D *hugs back* Yay! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.