Jump to content

Asexuality is not a disorder


Ephilei

Recommended Posts

Just saw the asexual psych group forming in response to the upcoming DSM V (the book that defines mental disorders for the US). I admit I'd never heard of hyposexual desire disorder (HSDD), but as trans I hear about Gender Identity Disorder (GID) all the time and it seems that both have a lot in common in relation with the asexual and trans communities. Namely, a lot of non-scientist types assuming asex=HSDD and trans=GID based on the DSM and the community being offended by that and wanting to stop it. The problem with both is that the DSM, if you read the whole thing and not just little quotes, doesn't say asex=HSDD or trans=GID!

For something to be considered a disorder, the DSM has 5 attributes to measure. One of those attributes is the amount of distress and impairment caused as a result. Asexuals, like a lot of trans people, are pretty happy being how they are so their distress is 0. The amount that their asexuality impairs them is near 0 as long as they don't try to fit themselves into sexual relationships or something self-defeating like that. Some things can still be disorders even if these are 0 and they score high on other measurements, but HSDD and GID explicitly mention that distress and impairment are requirements. I.e., if you're happy and healthy with your sexuality, you don't have HSDD. End of story.

So if the mission of the asex group is "to get a bunch of doctors and scientists, and the DSM working group itself, talking about changing the definition of Hyposexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) so that it no longer treats asexual people as pathological." But asexual ppl already aren't considered pathological. Huh? So what are we doing?

Of course this depends on what exactly "asexual" means. If someone has no sexual attraction and is totally unhappy having any sexual relations but desperately wants a working sexual relationship, then they might be asexual and HSDD (also depends on other factors). Is it for cases like this?

Thoughts in general?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course this depends on what exactly "asexual" means. If someone has no sexual attraction and is totally unhappy having any sexual relations but desperately wants a working sexual relationship, then they might be asexual and HSDD (also depends on other factors). Is it for cases like this?

Thoughts in general?

The only reason I could think that someone experiencing no sexual attraction and totally not wanting sexual relations would want a "working sexual relationship" is if the asexual is romantically involved with a sexual, or simply wants to fit in with the majority culture - i.e., the sexuals. That's not a "disorder" on the part of the asexual, but a disorder on the part of society at large which doesn't accept asexuality as a legitimate variation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

Although there is a requirement that there is distress for the diagnosis to me made, there have been serious proposals to delete this requirement (including one by the guy who will be heading the sexual dysfunction sub-committee for the DSM V) The criticism is that inclusion of the distress criteria decreases validity and is bad for doing research about the condition in non-clinical populations. (It also makes some internal contradictions about time of onset since presence or absence of distress is ignored when considering this.)

After homosexuality was removed from the DSM, it was later replaced by ego-dystonic homosexuality (the person has same sex attraction and is distressed about it because they don't want to.) This meant that homosexuality was not in and of itself a mental disorder, but it still allowed for it to be a mental disorder for the purpose of therapists practicing "reparative" therapy. These therapies have become more marginalized among mental health professions, and ego-dystonic homosexuality is no longer listed. When it was removed (1987) one of the arguments used was that for most people with a gay or lesbian identity, their sexual orientation was a source of distress at some point in their lives. If some guy realizes that he feels same sex attraction there's a good chance that he'll be distressed about it at first thinking, "I don't want to have these feelings. I don't want to be gay" and things like that. Lots of people come to accept their sexual orientation and are not distressed about it, but for many people this can take a while. If ego-dystonic homosexuality is a mental disorder, then having a mental disorder is a very common stage of coming to adopt a gay or lesbian identity. To many, something seemed wrong with that.

Also, there is the issue that ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, but ego-dystonic heterosexuality was not. Even if there is the requirement of distress, it suggests to many people that there is something unnatural about homosexuality that isn't the case for heterosexuality. Many people have a problem with that too.

For asexuality and HSDD, it is important to remember that huge numbers of people who don't experience sexual attraction have never heard of asexuality. If they go to a therapist, at present, there is a good chance that many people's asexuality will be diagnosed as a mental disorder rather than the therapist suggesting to the person that they may consider looking into asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! That's a great explanation. The more I hear of Ken Zucker, the less I like his ideas. I completely agree that, at least, the distress requirement is kept. Have you heard of distress being removed from any other disorders? I guess that's enough to warranty advocacy.

Then I wonder, is having an aversion to identifying as a rare/unpopular identity (whether asexual, gay, or trans) potentially a disorder or just a personal failing? Here's where my psych knowledge fails. Ego-dystonic homosexuality, GID, or an asexual's HSDD could be overcome and I don't see a problem with saying, "I had to overcome my own bias/disorder to accept myself as asexual/gay/trans." It indicates that the disorder is a failure of self-acceptance and our culture not a failure of gender or sexuality. What's so bad with that being a common stage as long as its not a necessary stage? Were ppl thinking that somehow ego-dystonic homosexuality implies all homosexuality is a disorder? I could be wrong, but in the asexual community, being angry with asexuality doesn't seem like something common at all.

All these disorders have a common trait that they can be resolved one of two ways: changing their gender/sexuality or accepting it.

For asexuality and HSDD, it is important to remember that huge numbers of people who don't experience sexual attraction have never heard of asexuality. If they go to a therapist, at present, there is a good chance that many people's asexuality will be diagnosed as a mental disorder rather than the therapist suggesting to the person that they may consider looking into asexuality.

That's a problem with the therapist. If a therapist can't understand the DSM's requirements, well, what hope is there? Perhaps explicit mention of an asexual identity as an alternative?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest back_slash123

I read the old dsm for summer reading for school and frankly its interresting so much so that I chose it over tom clancy but as for your post I so don't think I have a dissorder because I don't get my thrills from sex

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I should have been more specific about the bit about the proposal to remove the part about distress. It wasn't Ken Zucker (who is the head of the committee for the sexual and gender identity disorders). The sexual and gender identity disorder committee has three subcommittees: GID, paraphilias, and sexual dysfunctions. The guy I was referring to is someone named Segraves, who is the head of the sexual dysfunctions subcommittee.

Have you heard of distress being removed from any other disorders?

In the DSM-IV ('94) the requirement of personal distress/interpersonal difficulty was added to everything in the sexual and gender identity disorder section with very little thought--including pedophilia, and other sexual desires involving illegal activities. This was something of a PR minor disaster for the APA and the distress requirement was removed for these in the DSM-IV-TR (2000). One reason that people want to remove the distress requirement is that they were added with minimal discussion or forethought about the consequences of inclusion.

That's a problem with the therapist. If a therapist can't understand the DSM's requirements, well, what hope is there? Perhaps explicit mention of an asexual identity as an alternative?

Even if it's a problem with the therapist, it's still a problem for the client. Also, it is perfectly possible that some asexual (who has never heard about asexuality) goes to therapy distressed about their lack of sexual attraction and a diagnosis of HSDD could be given, though this might not be so helpful for aiding the person in coming to accept their (a)sexuality. I think an inclusion of mention of asexuality as a possible identity is a very real possibility for something that could be proposed though I have no idea how well such an idea would go over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...
Qutenkuddly

A portion of this thread has been split off to here. This thread is now locked for necromancy.

Qutenkuddly,
Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

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...