Jump to content

"The Psychology of Asexuality"


graylightsavings

Recommended Posts

graylightsavings

I apologize if this has been posted before and I've missed it, but I just came across this article and it has, not for lack of a better term but rather for emphasis, made me want to cut a bitch.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-psychol...asexuality.html

"According to me a true asexual must have at least one biological and one psychological reason for not engaging in sex."

Saberi Roy, whatever research has lead you to believe that you have any authority in terms of defining others' sexuality when it does not relate to your own was not enough.

" I would consider a proper asexual to be asexual both in theory and practice. Thus if a person engages in sexual activity mechanically and does not derive sexual pleasure from it, the very fact that he or she engages in sexual activity, makes him sexual."

Semantically, yes. Semantically, the term "asexual" is inaccurate but all language is metonymy and since we are using the term to define a larger idea which includes a great deal more than semantics and because you have ignored the only concrete term laid out by the community's definition, "A lack of sexual attraction," you are a fail and you have negated the possible assumption that you had done research and you were ignoring human emotion and subjectivity in favor of information. No, no. Oh, no. You heard a word, decided it was a buzzword, and decided to explicate it under the guise of an intellectual exploration. Because you knew nothing about the subject you decided to publish an article based on how you perceived the word and buffer the article with some tidbits of psychological knowledge and some words like "autosexual," which, while accurate, do not relate to the subject matter because you did not address existing information put forth by the community.

I understand that I am being redundant but the repetition stems from my inability to reinforce just how much this article is backwards and is a problem.

Oh. ohho.

2015 Edit: The above link doesn't work anymore, but after an extensive research I've found this article here. For future reference:

The Psychology of Asexuality

On identifying the true asexual considering both desire and practice

Asexuality in humans is a rather confusing condition as asexuality may be socially, intellectually, psychologically or biologically induced. There are various ways of defining asexuality and it may be considered as a practice or a theory. Theoretically, an asexual is the one who does not have sexual feelings and desires towards either the opposite or same sex, whereas in practice an asexual is the one who refrains from sexual activity. Yet a person who engages in sexual activity but does not have sexual feelings have sometimes been considered an asexual and a person who does not engage in sexual activity for some reason is a celibate can also be an asexual. I would consider a proper asexual to be asexual both in theory and practice. Thus if a person engages in sexual activity mechanically and does not derive sexual pleasure from it, the very fact that he or she engages in sexual activity, makes him sexual. Even if a person does not engage in sexual activity and remains a celibate if he or she has complete sexual feelings towards the same or opposite sex or even towards no one in particular, he will not be considered asexual. Autoeroticism or autoerotic pleasure through masturbation and similar means does not imply asexuality but rather autosexuality, as the person seems to have complete sex drive but that is not directed towards any person and turned towards self. This may have something to do with homosexuality or narcissism and narcissists could be autosexuals or repressed homosexuals.

The biological basis of asexuality may be poor sex drive due to hormonal changes or brain damage especially in the region of hypothalamus or due to hypothyroidism, mental disorder and related physiological problems in the body. Autism, schizophrenia, depression and endocrinal imbalance can also cause asexuality. Late development of a sexual identity due to biological or psychological reasons may also lead to asexuality for a considerable period of time and sometimes can be a lifetime process. Autistic, schizoid, depressed personalities often have a biological basis for asexuality.

The psychological basis of asexuality varies from childhood sexual abuse/molestation to failed relationships although such people may still have deep sexual feelings and are only celibate and not strictly asexual. However very poor sex drive could be accompanied with the deep resentment for sex and this combination of biological and psychological factors would be the cause of asexuality. Many individuals with narcissistic and histrionic personality patterns could be asexual due to psychological reasons.

The social basis of asexuality can be training or personal vow, belonging to a religious or cultural group in which sex is prohibited or simply belonging to a society where asexuality is practiced. Men and women may prefer to remain virgins before marriage in some societies yet they would not be asexual in theory but only in practice due to cultural reasons, so such individuals are again celibate rather than asexual. There is for example, online community for asexuality and refraining from sex here is by maintaining celibacy although strict asexual individuals are the ones who have not only take a vow due to personal, religious or social beliefs but are also theoretically asexual and have biological basis for asexuality as well. Religious leaders for example follow the social basis of asexuality.

The intellectual asexual follows asexual lifestyle as a matter of choice. Philosophers and intellectuals and sometimes highly intelligent individuals can prefer to remain celibate and when accompanied by a low sex drive, they are often regarded as asexual as well. Yet this position is highly controversial as the intellectual and creative individual may be more interested in sublimating sexual impulses towards other creative activities and may consider sex as unnecessary or demeaning to their own moral and intellectual superiority. Intellectuals are however in most cases repressed in their sexuality rather than typically and completely asexual and they have philosophical or intellectual reasons for being so. Many philosophers such as Plato and Kant have remained asexual in their lifetime, although they could be considered as following a personal preference for celibacy rather than manifesting asexuality.

Asexuals may have an aversion towards sex or simply remain indifferent towards the sex act. They may suffer from a hypoactive sex drive, an inhibited sexual desire or simply sexual aversion. Since sex drive is also life drive according to psychoanalysis, a poor sex drive would be a poor life drive and asexuals may be completely unproductive. On the other hand, as in the case of intellectual or creative asexual, the sex or life drive which may actually be very strong is completely sublimated or channeled towards creative and intellectual activities so the individual may not be feel a need for sex. In this case thus, asexuality is not a consequence of lack of sex drive but rather a need to use it for other purposes. In an opposite direction asexuality can cause too much repression and consequent frustration and aggression that is suddenly manifested in criminal or antisocial activities. Like many creative artists and intellectuals, many criminals and antisocials can be asexual and the difference is whether the urges are diverted towards positive or negative directions in life.

According to me a true asexual must have at least one biological and one psychological reason for not engaging in sex. Like any other abnormal sexual condition, asexuality s a combination of several factors and being influenced by various factors at once, it is very difficult to identify true asexuality as against celibacy. But let’s say not having a sex drive at all due to hormones or repression or past abuse and also not engaging in sex is an indicator of asexuality. Thus a person who is autoerotic or prefers masturbation over the sexual act would not be considered as asexual. Psychological studies are mainly based on asexuals who are asexual in practice and thus such studies could be severely flawed as in these cases, people who are considered asexuals may still have latent or repressed sexual desire so they are theoretically not asexual and may have no difference with non asexuals in their level of sex drive. However asexuality could be successfully studied by psychologists with tests that would measure ‘both’ the desire to not have sex - the complete lack of sex drive as also the practice of actually refraining from sex. As of now, psychological tests have focused on measuring asexuality as the condition of ‘not being sexually attracted to anyone’. However there may be huge manipulation and denial in subject responses and many people may simply not want to reveal to others or even to themselves that they have felt sexually attracted towards someone.

Ultimately the human mind is complex and denial or repression of desire is the easiest route when the need to repress or deny is greater than the need to express so even responses obtained in psychological tests may not completely reflect an individual’s actual sexual drive. Finally the condition of asexuality remains as great a mystery as sex drive and the human mind and unless we have a deeper understanding of the process of thinking and desire, understanding sexuality or asexuality completely will remain elusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"According to me a true asexual must have at least one biological and one psychological reason for not engaging in sex."

Man, I know what you mean. I get annoyed when I see articles where people act like they know it all and try to present their opinions as some scientific evidence that asexuality is an illness or something that has to have been caused by something. When really, sometimes there isn't a cause, we just are what we are. And if there was a 'cause', does it really matter what it is, if it is not bothering the person themselves? Like someone else previously has said: does it matter whether or not a person is epileptic because they were born that way, or because they became epileptic after an accident? Bottomline is that they are epileptic. Kind of funny how so many non-asexual people out there get so worked up in finding a 'reason', when the majority of asexuals themselves are happy as they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur, this article seemed largely to be a rant by a clearly biased source with little research or factual founding. Oh yeah, and ultimately an argument about semantics, which honestly has no place in real life as communication will always, realistically, be flawed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"According to me a true asexual must have at least one biological and one psychological reason for not engaging in sex."

Roy's stuff has been on AVEN before. She's irritating, stupid, and a very poor writer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotanks0407

i agree with sally this women is completely crazy and has no idea what she is talking about

Link to post
Share on other sites

"according to me"

I'm sorry, Saberi, your authority is not final.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does no-body delve into the psychology of heterosexuality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
you*hear*but*do*you*listen
"According to me a true asexual must have at least one biological and one psychological reason for not engaging in sex."

Roy's stuff has been on AVEN before. She's irritating, stupid, and a very poor writer.

Note to self: steer clear of this woman's writings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
oneofthesun

I notice there's no advertising on that site. Are the articles on it unsolicited? A person blogging about their opinions on issues is one thing, but it takes a considerable amount of hubris to self-publish "scientific" articles without being paid for them, IMO. It implies one thinks of oneself as a person whose opinion should matter to others.

Either that, or it's a sign this woman can't get anyone to listen to her any other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
silentdreamer

From reading the article (or half of it, cause I got annoyed and quit), she seems to know little to nothing about asexuality and is just guessing on what causes it. It feels like she's just stabbing in the dark at every possible theory she can get and hopes one of them turns out to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Psychological studies are mainly based on asexuals who are asexual in practice and thus such studies could be severely flawed as in these cases, people who are considered asexuals may still have latent or repressed sexual desire so they are theoretically not asexual and may have no difference with non asexuals in their level of sex drive."

After reading through the article, this is the only thing in it that made any sense. While true, all it has to do with is the accuracy of the commonly quoted statistic of 1%, not whether or not asexuality exists.

"Buzzle.com: Intelligent life on the web" har har har.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...made me want to cut a bitch.

:lol:

as visions of chola's pulling razors out of their hair dance through my head... LMAO

Link to post
Share on other sites

The author has "Master's degrees in Psychology, Study of Consciousness & QM (quantum mechanics) and in Philosophy and also has diplomas in Management, Journalism and Counseling"? Why do I seriously doubt that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The author has "Master's degrees in Psychology, Study of Consciousness & QM (quantum mechanics) and in Philosophy and also has diplomas in Management, Journalism and Counseling"? Why do I seriously doubt that?

Probably because it's hard to spend 100,000,000 years in college without learning proper grammar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I notice there's no advertising on that site. Are the articles on it unsolicited? A person blogging about their opinions on issues is one thing, but it takes a considerable amount of hubris to self-publish "scientific" articles without being paid for them, IMO. It implies one thinks of oneself as a person whose opinion should matter to others.

Either that, or it's a sign this woman can't get anyone to listen to her any other way.

Exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Regal Lager
"According to me a true asexual must have at least one biological and one psychological reason for not engaging in sex."

Man, I know what you mean. I get annoyed when I see articles where people act like they know it all and try to present their opinions as some scientific evidence that asexuality is an illness or something that has to have been caused by something. When really, sometimes there isn't a cause, we just are what we are. And if there was a 'cause', does it really matter what it is, if it is not bothering the person themselves? Like someone else previously has said: does it matter whether or not a person is epileptic because they were born that way, or because they became epileptic after an accident? Bottomline is that they are epileptic. Kind of funny how so many non-asexual people out there get so worked up in finding a 'reason', when the majority of asexuals themselves are happy as they are.

So called authors like the one of this article worry me. I think the same types of people who give half-assed reasonings for someone being asexual (abuse, or so called intellectual asexual for example) are the same type of people who used to (and maybe still do) find reasoning for someone being homosexual or bisexual. God forbid there could be people who aren't interested in sex. I don't believe there doesn't have to be a biological and psychological reason someone being asexual. Granted there can be, but it's not as cut and dry as that. There are probably several factors that contribute to asexuality, just as there are factors that contribute to anyone's sexuality. It's a bit elitist thinking for someone to say you can only be asexual if you have a and b and c. There are several asexuals who've been sexual in the past but realized it's not who they are. Does that mean that we should shun them and not views them as asexuals because they've been sexual in the past? I don't think so. Anyways I'm tired and rambling but this article annoyed me. It makes me realize that there does need to be more accurate information about asexuality brought out to the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Asterion Orestes

Saberi Roy--The Psychology of Bull$#|+!

Buzzle.com--I wonder who came up with that. Previously I've only known "Buzzle" as the name of a rustic township in my home county.

Link to post
Share on other sites
< retired >

Saberi looks kind of cute so I'm willing to overlook the possibility that she's cognitively challenged. :lol:

The AVEN community has brought the type of confusion that Saberi displays in her article upon themselves by adopting a definition of 'asexuality' radically different from than that used in biology. This problem has been discussed before, and the situation is probably hopeless - even a very poor terminology, once entrenched, is difficult to change. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Saberi looks kind of cute so I'm willing to overlook the possibility that she's cognitively challenged. :lol:

The AVEN community has brought the type of confusion that Saberi displays in her article upon themselves by adopting a definition of 'asexuality' radically different from than that used in biology. This problem has been discussed before, and the situation is probably hopeless - even a very poor terminology, once entrenched, is difficult to change. :rolleyes:

Except the terminology we use here a) intuitively fits into other orientation naming patterns (prefix indicating number of genders/which gender attracted to, + sexual), b) already had meanings other than the "reproductive" meaning before AVEN picked it up, including "not interested in sex", or "not a sexual being," as can be understood by the fairly large segment of the AVEN population who called themselves asexual before discovering AVEN, and c) is easily distinguished from the "reproductive" meaning by simple context.

I don't think it's a terminology problem, especially in this case when the woman seems to understand what we say when we say "asexual" (e.g. not reproduction but orientation) but refuses to accept that it may not be as cut-and-dry as she seems to want to think it is, and moreover seems to think that she is the ultimate authority on sexuality (a problematic assumption at best). I really do not see what terminology has to do with anything here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
< retired >
I really do not see what terminology has to do with anything here.

Randomly select a person off the street and ask them what 'asexual' means, and they will most likely say 'without sex', i.e. celibate. This isn't the definition promulgated by AVEN. With better terminology, we wouldn't have to contradict this default assumption.

The psychological term 'hypoactive sexual desire disorder' doesn't sit well with many AVENites, who don't appreciate automatically being characterized as 'disordered'.

In any case, this argument is moot. We're stuck with the term, for better or worse. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article seems to be mostly opinion and speculation. She doesn't appear to have studies to back her up, but you can't have a study "proving" what the definition of asexuality is, anyway. Also, the cause of asexuality in individuals who don't have sex would not be distinct from the cause in individuals who do. She seems like she is just trying to make it sound like we're "repressed".

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really do not see what terminology has to do with anything here.

Randomly select a person off the street and ask them what 'asexual' means, and they will most likely say 'without sex', i.e. celibate. This isn't the definition promulgated by AVEN. With better terminology, we wouldn't have to contradict this default assumption.

The psychological term 'hypoactive sexual desire disorder' doesn't sit well with many AVENites, who don't appreciate automatically being characterized as 'disordered'.

In any case, this argument is moot. We're stuck with the term, for better or worse. :)

Well, actually, I submit we would--for better or for worse, the concept of asexuality as an orientation is not ingrained in the population at large. There's no word on the planet you could choose that you could ask Joe Schmoe what it meant and have him come back with "someone who does not experience sexual attraction."

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree here, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From reading the article (or half of it, cause I got annoyed and quit), she seems to know little to nothing about asexuality and is just guessing on what causes it. It feels like she's just stabbing in the dark at every possible theory she can get and hopes one of them turns out to be true.

Actually, I think a lot of her guesses are probably right. But that doesn't excuse the fact that she's passing them off as something more than just guesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think asexual is pretty intuitive. When I heard it the first time I knew what it meant (although I got it wrong- I thought it meant someone with a low or no sex drive. I remember telling someone that I thought I might be "a little asexual"), but I got the right idea. I can't think of another word that would really be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The author has "Master's degrees in Psychology, Study of Consciousness & QM (quantum mechanics) and in Philosophy and also has diplomas in Management, Journalism and Counseling"? Why do I seriously doubt that?

No, you don't need to doubt it. Just assume that she probably cheated on the tests, or gave her professors some, ahem, insentives to conveniently forget that they caught her copying off the answers of the real smart person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The author has "Master's degrees in Psychology, Study of Consciousness & QM (quantum mechanics) and in Philosophy and also has diplomas in Management, Journalism and Counseling"? Why do I seriously doubt that?

No, you don't need to doubt it. Just assume that she probably cheated on the tests, or gave her professors some, ahem, insentives to conveniently forget that they caught her copying off the answers of the real smart person.

Heh, yeah. Either that or she probably got her degree online.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...