Jump to content

Article in "Psychology Today"


BKAce

Recommended Posts

I've read this article today and it seems to be based on AVEN:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living...-they-important

I have no idea whether it's been discussed (I'm still getting easily lost around here blush.gif ), but I liked the article and I thought there's no harm in bringing it up, because if it's been already discussed or if this isn't the right place, then the mods would remove it.




2015 Edit - For future reference:


ASEXUALS: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?
We have so much more to learn about asexuality.
Post published by Bella DePaulo Ph.D. on Dec 23, 2009

Asexuality poses a challenge to some of our most fundamental beliefs about humans and their feelings. Yet, on this topic, we are mostly ignoramuses. Many Americans regard the prevailing assumptions about sex and sexuality as universal. They don't appreciate the ways that these ideas have changed over the course of history. Even within the scientific community, the study of asexuality as an orientation is starkly underdeveloped.

Recently, I asked for suggestions for updates for the 40th anniversary edition of that classic book, Our Bodies, Ourselves. Kris suggested a new section on asexuality, and pointed readers to asexuality.org (link is external), the Asexual Visibility and Education Network. I checked it out - it is a terrific resource - and also started searching for academic papers.

The first thing I learned is that there is a startlingly small number of serious studies of asexuality. Type "asexual" into a database such as PsycInfo, and what spills out are mostly discussions of whether old people are sexual beings.

Only a few more comprehensive articles pop up. For example, a 2004 study in the Journal of Sex Research reported the results of a national sample of more than 18,000 British residents. About 1% described themselves as asexual.

For this topic, though, what should come first is some basic understanding of what the term asexual means. The best source I found on that, and the one I will refer to most often throughout the rest of this post, is a 2008 article by Kristin Scherrer published in the journal Sexualities. In addition to her thoughtful conceptual analysis of asexuality, Scherrer contributes some empirical grounding. With the help of asexuality.org, she recruited 102 asexuals who were willing to answer open-ended questions about their asexuality and how that related to the rest of their lives.

Here are some of the basics of what I've learned so far from Scherrer and others. I want to note, though, that our understandings may change as research and writing on this topic grows.

What ASEXUALITY Is

On its homepage, Asexuality.org defines an asexual as "a person who does not experience sexual attraction." This is a definition about desire - how you feel, and not about sexual behavior - how you act.

Beyond the dimensions of feelings and behaviors is something broader - an asexual identity. There a process of self-examination involved in identifying as asexual. Importantly, though, an identity is not just personal - it is also social, cultural, and interpersonal. Asexuals who come together on asexuality.org to share experiences are building a community. They have the potential to engage in consciousness-raising and collective action, too. Health and mental health professionals, for instance, may be a little less quick to pathologize asexuality (see below) if there is a defined group of asexuals keeping the opinion leaders on their toes.

When the 102 asexuals in Scherrer's study discussed the meaning of their own asexuality, they most often pointed to desires: They said they did not experience sexual attraction or desire. One of the participants, Jenn, said this:

• "I just don't feel sexual attraction to people. I love the human form and can regard individuals as works of art and find people aesthetically pleasing, but I don't ever want to come into sexual contact with even the most beautiful of people."

Others, though, said they did feel sexual attraction but not the inclination to act on it. Sarah said this to the researcher:

• "I am sexually attracted to men but have no desire or need to engage in sexual or even non-sexual activity (cuddling, hand-holding, etc.)."

What asexuality Is NOT

1. Asexuality is not the same as sexual dysfunction.

If you are different from the norm, or what is perceived as the norm, you can count on the labeling police - and even some medical professionals - to tag you as dysfunctional. One of the great contributions of the web, and sites like asexuality.org, is that people can find others like them more readily than they ever could before. Comparing notes and experiences, they can find that aspects of their lives are shared, and - contrary to the conventional wisdom - are not at all undermining of their health or well-being.

Psychiatrists and psychologists sometimes see a lack of sexual desire as a symptom of an official disorder. Here, for example, is a description of Sexual Aversion Disorder (link is external): "Persistent or recurring aversion to or avoidance of sexual activity. The aversion must result in significant distress for the individual and is not better accounted for by another disorder or physical diagnosis. When presented with a sexual opportunity, the individual may experience panic attacks or extreme anxiety." The important point here is that to count as a disorder, the experience must result in "significant distress."

There is a problem in leaping from the fact of a lack of sexual desire to a label of a sexual disorder: You need to stop along the way to ask how asexuality is experienced in an individual's life. If you are okay with it, then everyone else should back off and keep their pathological labels locked in their file cabinets.

2. Asexuality is not the same as celibacy.

From asexuality.org: "Unlike celibacy, which is a choice, asexuality is a sexual orientation. Asexual people have the same emotional needs as everybody else and are just as capable of forming intimate relationships."

3. A disinterest in cuddling or other forms of physical affection is not a necessary part of asexuality.

Sarah (quoted above) said she had no interest in any kind of physical affection, not even hand-holding or cuddling. Others, though, do like those kinds of interactions. For instance, when asked to describe her ideal relationship, Rita said this:

• "The same as a ‘normal' relationship, without the sex. We would be best friends, companions, biggest fans of each other, partners in financial, work, and social areas of our lives. I am very physical. I would like to be able to tackle my lover (as in, ‘I love him', not as in ‘person I am currently having sex with') to the ground, roll around until I pin him, then plant a kiss on his nose, snuggle into the crook of his arm, and talk about some random topic... without him getting an erection or entertaining hopes that this will lead to the removal of clothing or a march to the bedroom."

4. A disinterest in romance is not a necessary part of asexuality.

Rita, the asexual person quoted just above, described an ideal relationship that was in many ways a romantic one. Other asexuals are uninterested in romance. Kisha, for instance, said this in response to the question about her ideal relationship:

• "I've already got a friendship that feels a lot like my ideal relationship. We have a ton of common interests...We laugh, we think the same, we never fight or cause any burdens to each other...That's all I want, just great friendships. I don't need attraction or anything physical."

Asexuals who are romantic often identify as heterosexual, gay or lesbian, or bisexual. For those who are "aromantic," those distinctions seem irrelevant. Noting that the gender of the other person was unimportant to her, Nora said, "I am attracted to personality." Mona added, "The things I find attractive, I find attractive in both sexes."

5. A lack of pleasure from your own body is not a necessary part of asexuality.

Some asexuals consider masturbation a sexual act and are uninterested in it. Others, such as Gloria, have a different perspective:

• "I do not have any desire to have sex with another person. I masturbate at times but I don't connect it with anything sexual. I know it sounds like a contradiction but it's just something I do every now and then."

Why Asexuality is Important

Taking asexuality seriously is a very big deal. To document a sizable number of people who do not experience sexual attraction is to challenge one of the most fundamental assumptions of contemporary society - that sexuality is pervasive, a given, an essential part of what it is to be human.

When I wrote previously about Sex and the Single Person, I emphasized how important it is to take the long view of sex and sexuality and appreciate how our assumptions have changed over the course of history. In contemporary Western societies, sexual experiences (and lots of them) are believed to be a defining feature of the good life. That's great for people who love having sex and can readily find partners. Others, though, such as the involuntarily celibate, or the happily asexual, are likely to feel marginalized.

[Happy holidays, everyone! I'm going to try to turn off my computer for a few days.]

Link to post
Share on other sites
lol I can't see the link :D

I guess I'm misusing the "insert link" option? I edited my first post and added the link as a simple URL. Sorry :redface:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this article in the print version as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this article in the print version as well?

Yes, it is. There's a "print friendly" button down the page.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/36254

Its a pretty good article

And it a phyc based website, but doesnt tell us we're all anomalies and dont exist, which is always a plus smile.gif

That's what I liked about it as well. I especially loved how a psychologist is saying:

Health and mental health professionals, for instance, may be a little less quick to pathologize asexuality (see below) if there is a defined group of asexuals keeping the opinion leaders on their toes.

That article shows how positive visibility helps people understand what asexuality really is.

Thank you to all the AVENites who helped by participating in the study! :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually hoping the article would be in the magazine itself, you know, the version sold on the rack in stores... it would have more "weight" if it came in the glossy colored paper version... you can tell I'm over 40 when I type that, right? I still believe in paper !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the article too. I thought it was well written and well informed.

I used to read the printed version of Psychology Today, before the internet, as psychology is one of my interests.

I really think that science can learn a lot about all types of human sexuality by studying people like us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was actually hoping the article would be in the magazine itself, you know, the version sold on the rack in stores... it would have more "weight" if it came in the glossy colored paper version... you can tell I'm over 40 when I type that, right? I still believe in paper !!!

LOL, sorry I misunderstood you. I think it has less to do with your age and more to do with my ignorance. I had no idea that this is a magazine. I've never seen it in our stores and I've never been to that site before, so I just assumed you were asking how to print it or something. :lol: :blush:

I agree that it would have more impact if it were published in a magazine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've never seen Psychology Today in stores... ??? Okay, it's a big glossy page, full-color mag, thicker than People Magazine, and it's been in print atleast since the 1980's, maybe even longer... maybe the 1960's... I'll look it up in Wiki... okay, I looked it up. It's been around since 1967... it's a real nice magazine & generally has good stuff. Anyway, if something is in print, people think it's more real than assume it's some "stuff from the web."

Link to post
Share on other sites
You've never seen Psychology Today in stores... ??? Okay, it's a big glossy page, full-color mag, thicker than People Magazine, and it's been in print atleast since the 1980's, maybe even longer... maybe the 1960's... I'll look it up in Wiki... okay, I looked it up. It's been around since 1967... it's a real nice magazine & generally has good stuff. Anyway, if something is in print, people think it's more real than assume it's some "stuff from the web."

I think you're assuming I'm from the US. So I'll disregard the sarcasm. <_<

I think the more commercial a US item is, the easier it is to find it anywhere else in the world. I have to buy many of my DVDs online for that reason.

This particular magazine might be available in my country but it's definitely not around me in the local stores I usually shop from. I'll try to look for it though. French magazines are more prolific than English ones here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't actually being sarcastic... what did you think was sarcastic, the magazine being a nice glossy magazine, or the part about "stuff from the web?" That's how my generation feels about the web, really... it's just "stuff." Not taken seriously, that is... I also did not know you were from the U.K., but maybe they have a British version of the same magazine...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't actually being sarcastic... what did you think was sarcastic

This:

You've never seen Psychology Today in stores... ??? Okay

I was even "hearing" the sarcastic tone while reading it, with a drawn out "O-kaaay."

I also did not know you were from the U.K., but maybe they have a British version of the same magazine...

Now I'm actually flattered that you think I'm a native English speaker at all! What a roller coaster of emotions this discussion is! :lol:

Haven't you ever heard of Lebanon? Shame on you!

Just kidding :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great article! She males a lot of good points. :D

(BKAce, you're not from Lebanon, UK? just kidding! ;) I would not have guessed you weren't a native English speaker.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Okay" is the beginning of the explanation about the magazine, which is a common "saying" around here, here being not "Aven," but here meaning the location where I sit & type on this Macintosh.

Of course I've heard of Lebanon...

People in the U.S. say "Okay" a lot when they begin to describe stuff, like, "Okay, it looks like this and it looks like that, okay?" It's just a thing people say a lot. It's like "like." It's, "Like, okay, it's like this... " Like, when you have a conversation, people say "okay" a lot... Okay is not sarcastic unless it's actually "O-kaaay... " Okay is not quite the same thing as "O-kaaay." If I was sarcastic I would have typed, "O-kaaay," but even in spoken conversation "O-kaaay" is not always a sarcasm, it could also have multiple meanings, such as your boss wants you to work late, "O-kaaay," which means you agree to work late, but don't like it. Or you get a bill in the mail and call to explain the late fees, and the customer service person says your check arrived one day late, you say "O-kaaay," meaning you will pay it and you're not happy, or "O-kaaay" could also just mean "okay" with a tired voice, as in, "O-kaaay," yawn, i.e. both "okay" and "O-kaaay" can have multiple meanings in the culture from where I am typing from...

The Webster's Dictionary (1957 version) defines this word, both "O.K." and "okay," as "correct," and "all right," "to endorse," "to approve." I believe the root of the word "okay" is actually a Native American word, from the Choctaw tribe, originally as "okeh," which both meant "assent," and was used as a war cry also. So "okay" can have multiple meanings. Okay can be used to agree to something, to begin a conversation or begin an explanation, or when the Choctaw war party starts to attack. Today it's just a word that gets thrown around a lot in informal conversation.

There is no "roller coaster." I just don't think you understand, i.e., it's a communication thing. No one here is being sarcastic. I just wanted to tell you all about this magazine that is popular and widely read around where I am, everyone knows this mag, it's well known like "Time."

There... I typed all that so you could have an explanation that there was no sarcasm and that "okay" is a common thing in coversation, like "like," "yuh," "yah know," "do yah know," "so," and etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe the root of the word "okay" is actually a Native American word, from the Choctaw tribe, originally as "okeh," which both meant "assent," and was used as a war cry also. So "okay" can have multiple meanings. Okay can be used to agree to something, to begin a conversation or begin an explanation, or when the Choctaw war party starts to attack.

My understanding is there is not a clear origin of the word. An native American origin as described is one explanation that has been put forth. Another has to do with "Old Knickerbocker", which seems the most likely given timeframes and recorded usage. Another that most scholars seem to believe is unlikley is that it's based on a deliberately misspelled phrase, "orl korrect".

(okay, I'm a geek interested in word origins - among many other odd, useless and/or trivial knowledge :D )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm a geek too! I love words. Another explanation is that "O.K." is from "Old Kinderhook." It's a lot cooler to say it's a Choctaw war cry, though... You can imagine all these people charging into battle with their flaming arrows, "OKAY!!!"

Nothing against Native People is intended. I'm part Native American myself. My daddy said I was "a little Chinook." Not sure if he was sober when he said that, though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neat article. :)

And I live in the states and the only place I've seen that book is in the library, fyi. And I'm not so sheltered that I don't leave my house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was actually hoping the article would be in the magazine itself, you know, the version sold on the rack in stores... it would have more "weight" if it came in the glossy colored paper version... you can tell I'm over 40 when I type that, right? I still believe in paper !!!

Actually, I don't think it's just an age thing. It would definitely carry more weight if it were actually in the magazine. Or even if it were an online exclusive official news story. But it's just a blog, one of many hosted by Psychology Today. Blogs don't carry a whole lot of weight. I know, I write one.

On the other hand, it's possible for it to get more attention from other news sources. For example, the recent article in Scientific American was also a blog rather than an actual Scientific American news story. But I later saw the article reproduced in other news sources. So there's still hope. The Psychology Today article was much better than the Scientific American one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thylacine, don't worry about it, I'm tough-skinned enough. I was just joking about the "emotional roller-coaster" thing too. It's a communication thing, as you say.

At least we do have Time magazine! :lol:

I mostly read magazines online though (due to my busy schedule) by subscribing to newsletters (my favorites are LePoint and BBC). The ones I might buy now and then in print are National Geographic, Reader's Digest and some of our local magazines.

Thank you and daveb for your informative "OK" origin, I love languages and word origins as well. So, I really enjoyed reading that.

And thanks Lyalen and daveb, for the moral support :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and if you said you were from Lebanon previously, I did not read it, and don't worry, I don't think Lebanon is in the U.K. or something, it's that there are so many people from the U.K. here (at Aven). (I know the typical American cannot find California on a map, but I'm not a typical American... )

You did not need "moral support." You just needed to be made to understand I am not picking on you or teasing you in any way, nor was I being "sarcastic." There may be times when I use sarcasm in my writings, but I was not being sarcastic with you. Please stop making it look like I'm some kind of internet-bully. I was just being a nice person trying to explain to you. You are making something out of a "problem" that does not exist here. This over-reaction is not necessary. I continue to insist I was not being mean to you. You take things the wrong way, then claim you needed "moral support." It is not necessary to make a "thing" about something that isn't really anything at all.

This situation reminds me of a friend I don't want to hang out with anymore. I gave her this nice gift, it was nice bubble bath & fancy soaps & stuff... She sees this nice well-meaning gift and goes, "What, are you saying I smell bad??? !!!" Then she goes, "kidding!" I took a lot of time picking that out & wrapping it, then she snarls about it, then she goes, "kidding!" then she laughs... I'm sick of being nice to people and having them freaking turn everything all around and making me into this evil villain... so don't be saying I'm sarcastic and that you need moral support when I'm only being nice to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thylacine, this is getting ridiculous. You're the one who's obviously missing the joke. You're the one making a problem out of nothing. I thought that adding the silly emoticons and the "quotation marks" would be clear enough if I wasn't able to express myself. Obviously, you're misinterpreting things no matter what I do and keep picking at the subject when I've been dismissing it the whole time.

I wasn't offended by your post in the first place, I just humorously said that I saw sarcasm in your post. I was trying to tell you that I'm not as dumb as you might have deduced.

I'm sorry you've had such "bad" experiences with people; that might explain why you're not "laughing" at this ridiculous "incident." But I assure you, this wasn't a similar case.

When I thanked the posters for "moral support," I didn't imply you're a bully. Me thanking them has NOTHING to do with whether you were being sarcastic or not.

It has to do with them trying to lighten up the discussion, because (I'm assuming) they (mis-)read you like I did. Whether it was your intention or not, they posted something nice/funny and I thanked them for it. By thanking them I wasn't "over-reacting" or even reacting to your posts at all. I was merely acknowledging that I've read their posts and thanked them for their "intentions," regardless of yours.

Lighten up, it's Christmas. :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I do not wish to "lighten up." Perhaps I only want to not be made into a villain when I have only good intentions... for further, people with responsibilities do not lighten up for Christmas, it is the most stressful and most pain in the ass time of year, all the while we must pretend to be freakin happy...

Anyway, back to the discussion in general. The title of the article is "who they are and why they are important." I disagree: I do not believe any "expert" will take this seriously or see us as important. The article also mentions the lack of research. I further do not believe much research will be done in this subject matter, whereas the "experts" would rather to continue to see us as sadly disordered, and continue on to use the label "disorder," and would rather concentrate on profiting from inventing better viagra & etc. No, I doubt anyone in the future will take this seriously or think outside the box. So put that in your stocking everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thylacine, I didn't see anyone trying to make you out as a villain. You're coming off as the one making a bigger deal out of this whole thing. I'm sorry you're feeling that way and sorry you've had bad experiences. Best wishes!

You may be right about the article/blog post, but it's better than a negative article/blog post or even none at all. It may not do much good (or any good), but it can hardly hurt. The visibility of something like asexuality is not going to happen over a short time span. I think it will take time and the more places it's brought up the better it will be. Even if only a few laypersons read the article and realize it fits them it'll be a very good thing in my opinion.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Happy Holidays! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, Dave B, I did really feel that way... I felt kinda hurt, yah know. I really did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yeah, Dave B, I did really feel that way... I felt kinda hurt, yah know. I really did.

I'm sorry. I really don't think it was meant that way. Sometimes the written word doesn't convey some things well. In my book anyone who chooses a user name like thylacine and includes an avatar to match is okay. :)

Well, it's Christmas Eve. I didn't expect any presents other than the ones I bought myself, but somebody sent me a package from amazon.com this afternoon. :)

I hope everyone is enjoying the holidays :D

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...