Jump to content

Is asexuality a psichological disorder?


Recommended Posts

I mean, had anybody gone to a psichologist or to a psychiatrist to try change their asexuality in order to be heterosexual or homosexual?.Is it possible or not?.Because if gay people is now acepted and the homosexuality isn't considered a mental disorder,perhaps it happens the same with the asexuality in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

many people dont get married and not every one of them is asexual. there will be easier acceptance of asexuals in society than of gays, i think. till recently, shock therapy was advised to cure gays. i hope the situation never becomes that desperate for asexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that anyone ever thought of asexuality as a psychological disorder. Biological they would probably question, but not psychological. But it's all a rediculous question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cate Perfect

We have some threads here about the disorder in the DSM-IV that sounds very much like asexuality...What's it called? Sexual Aversion Disorder. Of course, with any 'disorder' unless it's causing distress to the person with it (or negatively affecting others) then there's no real reason to seek a cure.

This is the definition from the DSM-IV: http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=2978

And here's another thread about it: http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=104

Cate

Link to post
Share on other sites

well gays are going after guys and straight males are avoiding it like plague...but what are the chances of anyone really discovering asexuals? you dont screw anybody....you're just being virtuous right? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, had anybody gone to a psichologist or to a psychiatrist to try change their asexuality in order to be heterosexual or homosexual?.Is it possible or not?.Because if gay people is now acepted and the homosexuality isn't considered a mental disorder,perhaps it happens the same with the asexuality in the future.

I would hope so -the acceptance. However, I believe it is still the common thought in psychology that Maslow's hierarchy is the truth: sex is one of the basic needs on the same level with hunger and thirst. Which is totally insane a thought. I understand sex is necessary for the _species_ to survive, but certainly not the individual.

I don't know - based on this way of thinking, would it be more difficult to accept asexuality than homosexuality because gays and heteros still fulfill their "basic need" with someone? What do you think?

The thought of going to discuss with a shrink had crossed my mind occasionally. I would think that many of the people here have felt alone and that there's something wrong with them, before finding out places such as this. I can certainly say that for myself. I've felt like a freak because I wasn't interested in sex like everyone else seemed to be, like one was "supposed" to be. (I might add that I don't spend time thinking about sexuality, though. I feel that kinda freaky only when sex is brought up in a discussion.)

But I can honestly say that since I found AVEN a couple of weeks ago, it started a process in me I feel very comfortable with. There are others like me and we are normal people! I feel great!

"All the mud in this town,

all the dirt in this world

none of it sticks on you

you shake it off cos you're better than that

and you don't need it

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH YOU"

(Neil&Tim Finn)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've felt like a freak because I wasn't interested in sex like everyone else seemed to be, like one was "supposed" to be.

But I can honestly say that since I found AVEN a couple of weeks ago, it started a process in me I feel very comfortable with. There are others like me and we are normal people! I feel great!

right, its the lack of visibility and support that pushes any minority group into loneliness and depression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have some threads here about the disorder in the DSM-IV that sounds very much like asexuality...What's it called? Sexual Aversion Disorder. Of course, with any 'disorder' unless it's causing distress to the person with it (or negatively affecting others) then there's no real reason to seek a cure.

This is the definition from the DSM-IV: http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=2978

And here's another thread about it: http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=104

Cate

Interesting -- those "disorders" do sound a bit like asexuality! But the DSM isn't infallible -- homosexuality was also listed as a "disorder" until sometime in the 1970's I think.

And as you said, one of the criteria for diagnosis is "significant distress or interpersonal difficulty." I would also say that an asexual who is "experiencing distress" over their sexuality because of cultural attitudes about sex, etc., is not experiencing distress because of their asexuality per se -- they're experiencing distress because they are a part of a minority group which is marginalized by society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainSensible

For the people who are asexual in the way that I am ahomosexual (e.g. indifferent, "cold fish", never think about it) and are happy in their asexuality, it doesn't make sense to describe their asexuality in terms of DSM type stuff (it was wrong for homosexuals, and it wrong for them).

However, not all people who claim to be asexual belong to the above category, and their reasons for being asexual (if they can identify any) and their symptoms (navel gazing mememe stuff, anti-sexuality, prudishness, disgust etc.) can be associated with all sorts of DSM type disorders.

It's definitely true in my case; I'm not unhappy and am gradually accepting that I'm not actually interested in real sex (esp. sex with all sorts of conditions attached), but I also know that my asexual behaviour has more to do with being risk-averse/squeamish (I have a phobia about cunninlingus) and easily bored/incapable of forming long-term relationships instead of being asexual in the sense described above (first paragraph).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I concider myself asexual, and I really do not think that asexuality is a disorder of any kind, I do think there is something in sexual aversion disorder, though I'm not so sure about the hypoactive sexual desire disorder. That's a rediculous name, first of all. But sexual aversion, I definitely believe.

In those DSM checklist-thingies, there are always options that are manditory, including that it has to be a distressing factor on the individuals life. Then there is a checklist of more symptoms of a disorder, and you generally have to experience a certain number of those symptoms to be diagnosed.

You need three things to define a disorder: deviance, dysfunction and distress. (I am currently learning this in psychology) The fact that most of us are not distressed over our lack of sexual desire. The absence of this factor already denies the possibility that those of us who aren't distressed because of it have a disorder. These are the rules. Yes, we deviate from the perceived norm in our sexual behavior. But most of us probably are not sexually dysfunctional either. Even if some of us are sexually dysfunctional (or maybe lacking the ability to desire sex is a dysfunction) we are still missing the third factor.

That being said, asexuality is definitely not a disorder of any kind. HSDD might be one, I've never really come across it, so I wouldn't know. But only if the individual is having serious issues over it, like it is strongly affect their life, they can't function in society or the home or workplace and they have distress over it.

Sexual aversion seems quite possible to me, as I have a slight (perhaps more than slight) aversion to sex myself. It does not really bother me except when people try shoving pornography in my face, or they hit on me or talk about things I don't want to hear about. I mean, if I experienced a desire for sex and involved myself in situations where sex was an issue then I am positive it would definitely have a negative effect on my life, and I could concider it a disorder. However, for me this is not the case, and I don't desire sex. My aversion to sex has little to do with my asexuality, since my lack of interest was prevalent long before my disgust of the issue.

So...not a disorder, but there are disorders related to sex and sexual inhibitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
....Editing........

You need three things to define a disorder: deviance, dysfunction and distress. (I am currently learning this in psychology) The fact that most of us are not distressed over our lack of sexual desire. The absence of this factor already denies the possibility that those of us who aren't distressed because of it have a disorder. These are the rules. Yes, we deviate from the perceived norm in our sexual behavior. But most of us probably are not sexually dysfunctional either. Even if some of us are sexually dysfunctional (or maybe lacking the ability to desire sex is a dysfunction) we are still missing the third factor.

......Editing..............

Sexual aversion seems quite possible to me, as I have a slight (perhaps more than slight) aversion to sex myself. It does not really bother me except when people try shoving pornography in my face, or they hit on me or talk about things I don't want to hear about. I mean, if I experienced a desire for sex and involved myself in situations where sex was an issue then I am positive it would definitely have a negative effect on my life, and I could concider it a disorder. However, for me this is not the case, and I don't desire sex. My aversion to sex has little to do with my asexuality, since my lack of interest was prevalent long before my disgust of the issue.

So...not a disorder, but there are disorders related to sex and sexual inhibitions.

My question is this: If people constantly shoved books about digital signal

processing (DSP) in your face, constantly chattered about it, used to try and sell you stuff you didn't want or need and then acted like you had a

problem because you were not enraptured by digitial filters, wouldn't you get mad? Avoid all situtations where DSP might get mentioned? Hate the very mention of it? Most people would.

So you have DSP-avoidant disorder! Fourier transform phobia! You are

sick and must be treated. Any normal person knows that DSP is the key to life, the alpha and the omega. Claude Shannon is a demigod. Poles and zeros are the secret of the universe.

Get the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

*blinks*

What...is Digital Signal Processing? What kind of people are shoving it in your face? For that I would recomend getting away from those people and removing yourself from those situations, unless you work with DSP? But then, if you hate it, do something else?

"Fourier transform phobia" -- is this an actual phobia (I mean do you mean that someone who is genuinely afraid and really afraid of it for no good reason except the automatic responce to it?), and if it were a phobia...then you might want to figure out how not to be afraid of it, or else you will want to avoid it... But is dislike (I assume it's just strong dislike of these things) really a deviance from the norm? I mean, I assume most people have never heard the term DSP...

I know this was hypothetical and these questions likely aren't important and you're going to read what I just wrote and think, "no, you imbicile, you missed my point!" And yes, actually, I did miss your point completely...I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to communicate with me.

But I will automatically assume you think I think that a disorder is an illness that must be cured? UUUUh, no, my friend, just no.

I have social anxiety disorder/social phobia. I am not sick, I don't need to be cured. I appreciate this damn part of my personality on a (maybe twisted) level. I fucking love the so called sick and twisted, and hope it's never "cured". It doesn't get cured, it develops people. When people feel bad about themselves and the neurosis they have to deal with, they should get help, from doctors, friends, peers, spirituality, themselves, time, etc. and develop as spiritual beings. Reality constantly changes, norms constantly change, ideas about ourselves constantly change as generations change, culture and society changes, thought changes around the world. What is in disorder of the now may just be ahead of its time. Disorders only exist if you believe in a fixed reality. I was just giving our reality's facts of the day man.

Anyway, I've no fucking clue what you're asking me to think about Apollo. You can elaborate, I would be happy to engage in such a discussion. I am not clear on whether or not you were posing an argument or what. It just went over my head. I'll shut up now.

'scuse my swearing, it helps me think in one direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ApolloSeek's being sarcastic, cait, in saying that basically anything that is constantly shoved in your face and/or talked about is likely to make you want to avoid it because you're sick of seeing or hearing about it. However, people who do so aren't considered abnormal and in need of treatment in those cases because it's a perfectly acceptable reaction. The only exception people seem to make to this rule is when it comes to sexuality. According to them, you can't possibly want to avoid something that's supposedly so wonderful, so you therefore must be seriously f**ked up. Given the forum we're on, I'm guessing that ApolloSeek was just making an overstatement to prove the stupidity of those who claim that there's something wrong with asexuals. You wouldn't say that someone who doesn't like DSP needs treatment because of his/her avoidance, and neither do asexuals.

Of course, I could be wrong. In either case, I'll leave it up to ApolloSeek to confirm or deny my assumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my mind flickered briefly on that idea, but I can't relate it to what I said? It's late, of course, and my brain is funky (in a cool twisted way).

I get that sex is always shoved in our faces obscenely, and it's irritating ... but I mean if you lived in a small town and there was a mob, but you disagreed on the ideas and goals of this mob, then you are deviating, and then all the mob members who were your friends and family start to get on your case, shun you and so on, and this causes you distress because people are turning on you, you can't function in a society like this because it does not support your needs, you are naturally in disorder with this mob right? They think you should be fixed or go away. But this mob is probably trying to burn some important site down and harm people in the process or do something you concider very wrong (and it likely has very little thought behind it)...the mob is the norm in this town.

So...disorder...did someone say this was necessarily bad? I don't think so.

I guess in cases like...bipolar I can see why people might concider it an "illness", because you're harming yourself and others...but really the only disorders that should be concidered "illness" if any at all are ones that are damaging in significant ways (namely physically...because isn't that what illness is? physical ailment?)

people use disorder and illness too losely, so I'm glad they have guidelines the way they do...and the guidelines are going to change in every generation. And some of the disorders are going to be more legit. than others because they have been studied and understood more, and some will just be speculations. Really, it's all speculation though.

Honestly though...I just don't think a disorder should be treated as an illness. We are all human, we all have the same capacity to be abnormal. But people just don't understand what abnormal means. You know what I mean?

Should I just go to bed then...and shut up... (yes)

Link to post
Share on other sites
But I will automatically assume you think I think that a disorder is an illness that must be cured? UUUUh, no, my friend, just no.

I have social anxiety disorder/social phobia. I am not sick, I don't need to be cured. I appreciate this damn part of my personality on a (maybe twisted) level. I fucking love the so called sick and twisted, and hope it's never "cured". It doesn't get cured, it develops people. When people feel bad about themselves and the neurosis they have to deal with, they should get help, from doctors, friends, peers, spirituality, themselves, time, etc. and develop as spiritual beings. Reality constantly changes, norms constantly change, ideas about ourselves constantly change as generations change, culture and society changes, thought changes around the world. What is in disorder of the now may just be ahead of its time. Disorders only exist if you believe in a fixed reality. I was just giving our reality's facts of the day man.

seconded

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think ApolloSeek's being sarcastic, cait, in saying that basically anything that is constantly shoved in your face and/or talked about is likely to make you want to avoid it because you're sick of seeing or hearing about it. However, people who do so aren't considered abnormal and in need of treatment in those cases because it's a perfectly acceptable reaction. The only exception people seem to make to this rule is when it comes to sexuality. According to them, you can't possibly want to avoid something that's supposedly so wonderful, so you therefore must be seriously f**ked up. Given the forum we're on, I'm guessing that ApolloSeek was just making an overstatement to prove the stupidity of those who claim that there's something wrong with asexuals. You wouldn't say that someone who doesn't like DSP needs treatment because of his/her avoidance, and neither do asexuals.

Of course, I could be wrong. In either case, I'll leave it up to ApolloSeek to confirm or deny my assumption.

I was being sarcastic. What I used is a combination of illustrating absurdity

by being absurd and hyperbole. It's a time-honored practice in satire.

This is similar you what you'd find in Gulliver's Travels, especially the

chapter A Voyage to Laputa.

You don't have know what DSP is to appreicate the point. I used a highly

technical subject becuase of its satirical potential. I And I even explained

what the acronym meant. The imaginary person in this vignette acts the

way they do because they are human. That's why I explained

what caused the reaction.

It is absurd to expect everyone to know about or be interested in highly

technical subjects. And equally silly to condemn them for not being

gung-ho about it.

Do not expect me to start putting captions for the satire-impaired except

as a humorous device.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of the difference it would have on my life if asexuality was as accepted as the others and I can't think of one but that soem of my friends here would be happier.

There will bestill be people who feel it's "wrong" or a "choice", there will still be people who will try to "convert" me...I think I'd just continue the way I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not satire impaired!

I am going to eat your face

I still don't understand the correlation between this and what I said. You did not explain what the acronym meant; you simply said what it stood for. I realize this had no meaning, but I still asked, so there.

I still have no idea if this was an argument against what I said, or rather a point against what I said or what it was. But my answer to the original question is, yes I would be irritated, and I would hate when people told me about DSP, like I do now, sinse I've no clue what it is. But I'd definitely get over it if the talk of DSP was taken away from my life.

If society was highly dedicated to DSP, if it were a sole concern in the human population, if we were in a world where it was common and practical knowledge and you had to make use of it in order to live comfortably and without despair in your life, then deviation from involvement and interest in DSP might be a DSP aversion disorder. But DSP, as a specific example does not matter, because it's not that important. While sexual aversion would be detrimental in relationships, in making a family, in feeling comfortable with watching telivision or reading a magazine or newspaper...mostly in relationships. Say someone was in a relationship, very attracted to this person but had this impending fear at every thought of sexual contact, and they thought about it a lot...and it affected their lifestyle, their concentration, their ability to do things, made them depressed, and so on...would you concider this not a problem?

I am sure when you posted your satirical remark you had a specific task for people to understand in mind. and you're wondering "do I have to point out in common terms what I am trying to get across to those who don't understand the language and purpose for this point I am making...as they are not following me...possibly not as intelligent as me?" ... and the answer is, "yes, yes you do". I am sure you are oh so funny, but explain the correlation, relate it to the point you were questioning...reconcile the damn point or I'll get frustrated.

Or don't. I'm not actually an imbicile, I just come off that way. I'm cute, don't judge me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a psychologist/therapist try to change my sexuality, but two did look at me very strangely when I stated that I would not continue a certain relationship even if it meant foregoing sex. Why would you stay in a relationship only for sex???

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