euterpe Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Er - I'm not sure that the U.S. Government is perfect sane, sadly enough. So who's it to judge? Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Good point. But if they trust me to protect another man's life with my onw, I must be pretty sane, right? Although you just might be crazy to take my job. Link to post Share on other sites
Luisa Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Catch 22. You have to be trusted as sane in order to protect people ~with your life.~ But you'd have to be crazy to put someone else's survival ahead of your own. (Not really - it just takes a very special kind of individual. I know someone who was a Green Beret in Vietnam, and it was really hell...but he came out on the other side a winner and a survivor. Most people would want to avoid it, but he says it is his 'calling' to protect the innocent from the predators at all costs.) Link to post Share on other sites
aury Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Odd. In my outdated copy of my psychology book (I need to buy a new one. damn), there's no mention of asexuals. Hmmm......... Maybe it's because it's General Psych. Oh,well. Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 It takes really special people to put someone else's survival in front of their own . . . Hehe I think some people only join the army so they can shoot people up. I almost joined the army because of that :D But then people made it clear to me that the odds I would get to play Rambo were about 0.000052%, so I decided not to join. Come to think about it though, paintball would be better than the army because when you get shot in paintball, the odds of not dying increase dramatically compared to real war :) Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Yup, I took my current job just because I get to shoot people, I like playing soldier. No joke though, all of my job opptions that came up where like, chef, storkeep, you know, the stuff evryone gets. And then there was a whole bunch of Medical, sugen, Dentist. Oral Surgen. Shure you get payed to cut ppl up, but where's the love? It came dwon to two choices, Torpedo Man's mate, or Religious Support Specialist. Torpedo's are all used by computers, boring. Religious Support Specialists spend 50% of their time helping the Haplin with religious services and when not need tend to the ships Library. the other 50% is spent acting as the Chaplin's bodyguard when sent into enemy terratory (somthing that happens quite frequently) See, chaplins arn't allowed to fight, so RP's (as we call em) get not only the Navy's comabte tranning, but advanced Marine Combate tranning as well. Easy choice for me to make. Problem is, there are only around 900 RP's in the entire Navy, adn we account for the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Core. Plus the Marines use us on some of their missions if they need a few extra men. So when we go over seas with the chaplin, chances are you'r the only combatent around. haha, It's kkind of like being a Jedi knight!!! :D Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Um..sorry for the long off topic post. Link to post Share on other sites
Gorax Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 "haha, It's kind of like being a Jedi knight!!! :D" *LMAO* Nice! I still think of the army sometimes, but then I remember what high school was like, and that the army is five times worse, so the thought goes away hehe. Link to post Share on other sites
Orpheus Posted December 7, 2002 Share Posted December 7, 2002 Yup, the army is bad, that's why I'm in the Navy :D Link to post Share on other sites
Zorui Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Two hours ago I was a happy young psych major well along in the third year. Oh, of course I was a trifle upset with the article on the PsychInfo Database that claim asexuality was a disorder, but they would only show the abstract, not the article, so it was just some hack psychologist. Then, my copy of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - the bible of the psych world) came in. I flipped through to see if asexual had made it in there, but I thought, "they took out homosexuals in the '80's, surely we wouldn't be in there now". Guess what folks? Asexuality is lableled the sexual aversion disorder, specifically Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder. Not sure it's you? "The essential feature of SAD is the aversion to and active avoidance of genital sexual contact...The individual reports anxiety, fear, or disgust when confronted by a sexual opportunity with a partner...Some individuals experience generalized revulsion to all sexual stimuli, including kissing, and touching. The intensity of the individual's reaction when exposed to the aversive stimulus may range from moderate anxiety and lack of pleasure to extreme psychological distress..." It goes on to talk about low sexual desire and little to no need for masturbation, depending on the individual. WHY ARE WE IN HERE, THEY TOOK OUT GAYS IN THE 80'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is nothing wrong with me and you guys seem pretty well adjusted on the whole. I love being asexual! Anyway, I just thought I'd tell you guys to stay away from psychologists and also to give you the opportunity to be completely outraged. I hate the world. Hastur, Hastur, Hastur. Link to post Share on other sites
Live R Perfect Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 :evil: *IS OUTRAGED!* :evil: Link to post Share on other sites
Luisa Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 I have "Sexual Aversion Disorder?!?" Now that's just "SAD!" ;) (OK, I apologize for the bad pun.) Stay away from that book...they even have a number for you in there if you're, and I quote, "normal." (No kidding!) I never even ~entertained~ the idea that I might be "sick" until I read parts of that book. (Then, a few years later, I decided, "this is crap.") Remember, doctors don't have it right yet...that's why it's called a "practice!" :D Link to post Share on other sites
gambit_boi Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 i was most alarmed by the description of "anxiety over kissing and touching" bit. my god, that's me all over... how could they label us a disorder? we're not hostile or violent, we just don't want sex. celibates and many elderly men/women don't want sex either, yet their conditions are conspicuously absent. well, look, for decades (centuries, really) gay men and women didn't let what medical books were saying about them stop them from living. this sucks, surely, but we can't let one quack's blurb put a damper on who we are. Link to post Share on other sites
davelwhite Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 I have an article that makes fun of Sexual Aversion Disorder here. I think it's just like with gay people before. I think that, even though we support the decision that was made of removing gay people from the "diseased" list, that the way it was removed gives us a momentary glimpse of just how "scientific" clinical psychology really is. Imagine: Something that was a "disease" for 70 years suddenly isn't, because a committee voted to make it not a disease any more, based on political pressure. Can you imagine that happening with tuberculosis or lung cancer? No, because those are REAL diseases, unlike most of what's in the DSM 4, which is partly a list of "sins" against a secular religion, which sound more serious if they call them "diseases" instead. Nothing wrong with religion, mind you, and some of the sins listed in the DSM4 I agree with (pedophilia, say). Is it a disease? Who knows. Is it bad? Yes. The main problem with psychology, though, is that it won't admit to having a largely social or religious basis-- i.e. that it is based in one particular culture at one point in historical time. By labeling everyone who disagrees with it "diseased," psychology can avoid having to deal with religious dissenters, unlike more traditional religions. One of my beefs with Sexual Aversion Disorder and the whole attitude of psychology (especially as expressed in pop-psychology by laypeople) is the notion that if you're unhappy that means you should see a shrink. Gay people in 1970 were, as a rule, unhappy. So were black people in 1940. Many women in the 50's and 60's were unhappy, even suicidal, and psychologists were there to help with diagnoses of hysteria and so forth, "Mother's Little Helper" pills to take the edge off if you were having trouble coping with your "natural role" as a housewife. The one thing psychology is never there with is the notion that if you're unhappy with your place in society, you can CHANGE it. And so some blacks and gays and women DID kill themselves out of unhappiness, and others got mad and fought back-- nonviolently in the main-- and got some of the things they deserved. I know that in order to prove that Asexuals Can Be Normal, I am supposed to say I am happy. Generally, in fact, I'm not, though. I'm still unhappy 3 years later about one of my best friends disowning me 'cuz his wife didn't understand asexuality or intensity in friendship; I'm unhappy with the notion that in order to not live alone, I have to either have a succession of uncommitted "roommates" or have sex against my will with a "partner" who will think themselves "better" than my other friends because "only sexual relationships are committed"; I'm unhappy with the notion that when I care for friends' kids I'm just a "helper" or "babysitter" until a real co-parent (read: sexual partner) comes along. Could I pop a Prozac every day in order to forget my grief about my friend? Sure, and maybe they could improve the pill so no one'd ever have to feel grief over losing a loved one again, and think what an improvement in "efficiency" that would be for us as happy consumers and workers. But grief is part of life-- without grief and without "unhappiness" at conditions, those conditions never change. AVENguy wrote a cool paper I read, about how in capitalism it is necessary to limit intimacy (basically, limit it to sexual partnerships) to avoid too many people sharing stuff with their friends instead of being part of the money economy. I think psychology is part of this too: first of all, it "professionalizes" sadness and makes people think that emotional distress is not something they can deal with themselves along with their friends and loved ones, it's something where you have to pay an "expert." It encourages people to change themselves individually, rather than taking collective action (which is anathema to laissez-faire capitalism). And there is the naked profit motive too-- Mother Jones magazine did a great piece recently on how pharmaceutical companies take previously rare diagnoses from the DSM4 (like Social Aversion Disorder, once reserved for people who were truly scared of any human contact), and expand them (drug co. ads make it seem like all shy people are disordered) so as to create a bigger market for psychoactive drugs. Or, to summarize, some bits of psychology might just be a plain old scam. dave P.S. To add to an already overlong post, gambit_boi mentioned gay people ignoring "centuries" of medical advice against them, well, that's not the complete story. Homosexuality -- in its modern definition, which includes things like emotionally intense same-sex relationships or holding hands or kissing as well as sex -- wasn't medicalized as a "disorder" until the early 20th century. "Sodomy"-- gay sex-- was considered a "sin" before that, but not a disorder or a "kind of person" (anyone was considered capable of it if they were sufficiently immoral, the same way people think of Grand Theft Auto today). More importantly, the other behaviors we now associate with "homosexuality," especially among men (the holding hands, kissing, emotional intimacy part) were not considered deviant at all until the early 1800's for married men, c. 1870's for single men, and 1910's for women [in America]. They were considered "friendship." Psychologists and "sexologists" had a huge hand in changing our modern definition of friendship, although economics played a large part too. In many places the old definition still holds, of course, and for example, when American GI's were in Vietnam, they called their South Vietnamese allies "a bunch of queers" for following friendship customs that are probably thousands of years old. Link to post Share on other sites
Luisa Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 My word, that was well written! [applauds] Link to post Share on other sites
Live R Perfect Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Bravo, davelwhite! :D You certainly know your stuff - fascinating! *Didn't mean that to sound like a comment you'd find written on your homework* Link to post Share on other sites
Worthless Poster Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 thats pretty upsetting... i dont think i have a problem at all!! Oh, I have a problem! It's just... not realted to my sexual orientation heh Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nook Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 My sociology book ("Sociology" by John Macionis), which is one of the most popular and respected books used for introductory college sociology states asexuality as an orientation. In fact, that's how I found out about it in the first place! Sure, it ain't no DSM-IV, but at least one respected author out there believes we're a real orientation, and not just sufferers of some *bleeping* mental disorder! Link to post Share on other sites
GaliGwogi Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 maybe asexuality threatens to cause disorder within the new world 'order' of uniformity. in that sense it sounds okay to me. Link to post Share on other sites
PinkOlorin Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Technically, it's only considered a disorder if it's making it hard for you to live your life. For instance, personality disorders--it's just an extreme form of personality, of course. Lots of people tend toward a little bit of narcisism, or some hystrionics, but it's not a disorder until they can't function. Essentially, it has to be making you unhappy. And I'm *perfectly* happy with my asexy self! Link to post Share on other sites
JKReagan99 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 THe question I'll ask in response to that is, is it really a disorder if your unhappiness is derived from society's pressure concerning the "disorder" rather that from the "disorder" itself? Society tells us sex is good and we need to have sex to be full, we, however, do know that that is not true. If others don't come to this conclusion, they easily will feel something is wrong with them, because of what society says. Therefore, if society was different, it wouldn't be an issue, so is the real disorder the set of beliefs held by society? Link to post Share on other sites
PinkOlorin Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 In that case, the unhappy people who feel that they are "lesser" or "faulty" would be considered to have a disorder. But the people who revel in their asexy-ness? Not a disorder. Think for a moment about someone who has been sexual their entire lives, enjoyed it, and then lost it--it happens to lots of folks as they get older, and are in married--and sexual--relationships. In this case, they *want* to want it, but they don't want it, and so that makes for a lot of discomfort and weirdness in the bedroom. So, said person gets upset, starts to think that there's something wrong with him or her. Said person ends up talking to a shrink, saying this change has messed up his or her marriage and is making him/her unhappy. Shrink says, "Hey, you're *SAD*! Let me counsel you through this!" Also, I should point out that this board is a little like a support group, no? Also, most jobs don't ask if you have a mental illness--they ask if you've been *hospitalized*, and it takes a lot to get hospitalized. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.