Jump to content

Dr. Joyce Brothers


Eta Carinae

Recommended Posts

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/brothers/245050_joyce11.html

It's... sort of positive. And sort of not.

2013 Mod Edit - For future reference:

'Asexual' as an alternative lifestyle is still a new concept

By DR. JOYCE BROTHERS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Published 10:00 pm, Thursday, November 10, 2005

DEAR DR. BROTHERS: I heard on the radio something about a study that showed that a certain percentage of people are never sexually attracted to anyone at all throughout their entire lives. I am curious about this. I have a friend who likes guys but has never had a real boyfriend and never has wanted one. Neither is she attracted to women. (She is very frank with me.)

Is this what you call asexual? Or non-sexual? Is it healthy and/or normal to be celibate your whole life if you aren't some kind of priest or something? -- G.G.

DEAR G.G.: I understand your confusion about this topic, because although a lack of sexual attraction may be "normal," it could never be called "average"! If it were, the human race would have died out long ago. The "average" person -- while sometimes renouncing sexuality for religious reasons or losing interest in a dysfunctional way (sales of impotence medicine show this isn't a state many are willing to endure!) -- does not usually find a lifelong absence of sex drive to be either normal or desirable. Yet, according to New Scientist magazine, there is a growing movement of people willing to admit to such a state and affirm that they are not interested in the world of sexual beings.

Some organizations have been founded for people who proclaim themselves asexual, and this lifestyle is well on the way to becoming yet another "choice" in the smorgasbord of sexual interests. Although high stress can inhibit sexual feelings, usually people want to correct the situation. The asexual person may actually have sexual urges, but never connect them to any kind of "acting out." These people may form close personal unions with others, but the sexual element is missing. That is nothing new, but outside of a religious context, the idea of it as an alternative lifestyle to publicly embrace certainly is.

DEAR DR. BROTHERS: I am dating a very interesting man. We have a lot of common interests and find ourselves in many philosophical discussions. One of the things he seems very excited about is the idea of marrying ... but for a limited time, with some kind of "option" to continue or renew the vows if things are going well.

He says that this is the only way that two people will actually work at making the marriage a dynamic thing, rather than just something to take for granted. I find this concept a little hard to understand. Isn't marriage "forever," at least theoretically? Or am I being too "romantic," as he says? -- H.E.

DEAR H.E.: I hope your boyfriend doesn't put down the idea of romance, because that would be taking a lot of the fun out of the courtship process as well as the joy out of marriage. But perhaps he wants you to look a little deeper into the reasons you wish to spend "forever" with someone -- and the best way to achieve that ideal. Surely you are aware that even with this romantic notion as a goal -- or perhaps because of it -- marriages have been failing nearly half the time. So let's see if he has a better idea.

What may sound cold and businesslike to you -- "marriage with an option to renew" sounds like an apartment lease -- may actually be an arrangement that keeps you both on your toes, keeping your relationship fresh and focused on learning and changing together.

I'm not sure how the concept would work once children were added to the mix -- they should make the "option" less optional -- but having a deep and meaningful partnership that is actively worked at over the years would make renewal a likely outcome in more ways than one. Keep up the discussions until you see if you are on the same wavelength. As long as your boyfriend isn't just approaching this as an intellectual exercise -- a point to debate -- you might be well-advised to listen to his ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... She's definitely off the mark by calling it a "choice," and the tone of it made me uncomfortable at points. At least she didn't leap to the conclusion that "these people are sick and need to be cured," which seems to come up all too often when the media approaches asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
At least she didn't leap to the conclusion that "these people are sick and need to be cured," which seems to come up all too often when the media approaches asexuality.

Is that hypebole? I may have a biased view of the media's approaches, by reading World Watch posts, but the media seems mostly friendly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So she's another one who doesn't recognise that asexual people can and HAVE reproduced. We're not sterile.

What I read into it is the choice she is talking about is the lifeSTYLE, not the orientation. I am asexual but I could CHOOSE to live a straight/sexual lifestyle, a lesbian/sexual lifestyle, an hermit lifestyle, these are all choices open to me and I have chosen to lead a lifeSTYLE devoid of sex. There are plenty of asexuals who choose to live the straight/sexual lifeSTYLE because they want kids, they don't want to look like freaks etc. I mean, we see people here all the time who say "I'm married but I've never liked sex with my spouse or anyone".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think she thinks we don't reproduce. But, seriously, how many people do you think would be having kids absent sexual attraction?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my mum for one and a few other people on here who have said they're pretty sure one of their parents are A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, having one asexual parent is not the same as having both parents be asexual -- in the former situation, the sexual partner can press for sex; in the latter, there is mutual disinterest. Second, I didn't say that no asexuals would have kids if every human were asexual, just that not enough of them would to -- over the long run -- keep the species going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Silly Green Monkey

From what I have seen, I would guess that the drive to produce children is separate from the drive for sex, or sex attraction. Even the polls here reveal a significant fraction of respondents who would choose to have children of their own (by various methods, including sex). Assuming that these people are not going to settle for just one child, I think the species could indeed continue. For a while at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I have seen, I would guess that the drive to produce children is separate from the drive for sex, or sex attraction. Even the polls here reveal a significant fraction of respondents who would choose to have children of their own (by various methods, including sex). Assuming that these people are not going to settle for just one child, I think the species could indeed continue. For a while at least.

I totally agree. I'm sure the species will survive. Cutting down the population wouldn't be such a bad idea but many asexuals have a want to have a family. Perhaps if two asexuals get together it would be better because both may just use it for procreation purposes and nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. I had my daughter because I wanted a child, not because of sexual attraction.

BTW...she is (in my opinion) the sweetest, cutest, most intelligent kid on this earth...although i mayyy be a little bit biased.

There is alot to be said for a parent child relationship when the child was absolutely wanted and not just an accidental byproduct of an urge.

I bet the wanted kids end up getting spoiled more :lol:

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...