Jump to content

20/20- official page


(SP)

Recommended Posts

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Sex/story?id=1759069&page=1



2014 Mod Edit - For future reference:


Sexless and Proud
March 23, 2006

David Jay has had plenty of girlfriends. But despite the 23-year-old Californian's success in dating, he's a virgin -- and he plans to stay that way. He's not joining the priesthood or taking any vow of celibacy; he said he simply has no interest in having sex -- ever.

"I'm sure that life is really, really great when it's all about sex. But life is also really, really great when it's not about sex," he told "20/20's" JuJu Chang.

Keith Walker of Texas was married for four years, but said he had sex only a handful of times. "I really had no real interest or desire for sex. It was certainly nothing that I would ever think to do."

Nancy Mulligan, a divorcee from Washington state, said her seven-year marriage was never consummated. "We did other things. We'd watch out for each other. We were affectionate with each other," she said.

Victoria Glancy and Karl Hodgetts are preparing for that sort of marriage with their summer wedding. They're prepared to live happily but sexlessly ever after.

"I don't really see any difference between our relationship and other people's relationships, except you know, we don't have sex," Glancy said.

No Libido -- No Problem

Who are these people? From different ages and walks of life, they share one thing in common -- not low libido -- no libido. They call themselves "asexual" and they proclaim that they are not attracted to men or women.

David Jay said his lack of libido is nothing new. He said he's never experienced attraction -- to either sex. "I realized that I was asexual because when I was young, all of my friends started being attracted to people, and I had no idea what they were talking about," he said.

It was the same way for Nancy Mulligan, who felt isolated for years. "I thought I was the only one in the world. I had just kind of settled into the rut that I was different and decided to do the best I could with it," she said.

But now asexuals are building a community through a Web site -- asexuality.org. It has chat rooms, sells T-shirts and claims it has 6,000-plus members worldwide.

Jay is the Web site's founder, and the leader of what some call a new asexuality movement. He explains what's behind the group. "We're told that you need sex to be happy. We're told that the rules are that if you have a relationship, sex has to fit into it this way. And it's kind of fun to break that rule," he said.

Asexuality Is 'Not a Choice'

But some experts question if asexuality even exists. There's been virtually no research on the subject. Psychologists disagree on how to define it. And there's no certainty on what might influence it. Do hormones, genetics, personal experiences play a part? With no clinical or scientific conclusions on the subject, asexuals create their own definition.

And that definition is a far cry from celibacy, Jay pointed out. "It's not a choice. Celibacy is a choice, whereas asexuality is just the way that you are. Much like being gay is not a choice, or being straight or being right-handed," he said.

Some studies show that asexual behavior does exist in the animal world. Dr. Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, who has conducted one of the few studies of human asexuality said he found as much as 1 percent of the population may be asexual.

"They may still have physiological arousal experiences, vaginal lubrication, erections, but they may not be able to, or [connect] that arousal to men, women or both," Bogaert said.

Living without that connection can be a challenge in a world fixated on sex.

"What I mind is when the idea gets enforced that people need sex. That without sex, you're somehow broken. And of course, we can be happy without sex," Jay said.

Sex Therapist Questions Label

But Joy Davidson, a certified sex therapist, believes Jay and his fellow asexuals may be shortchanging themselves with the asexual label.

"Sex is a fabulous, enormously pleasurable aspect of life. And your saying you don't miss it is like someone in a sense who's color blind saying, 'I don't miss color.' Of course, you don't miss what you've never had," Davidson said.

Davidson cited a litany of factors that may be at the root of an asexual life.

"There may be something, maybe something physiological, endocrine, maybe something that has to do with trauma, or abuse, or repression, or severe religiosity, that has predisposed you to shutting down the possibility of being sexually engaged," she said.

But the asexuals Chang spoke with for "20/20" said they're perfectly happy as they are. They said they're used to people questioning their identity. They've even questioned it themselves. For years Victoria Glancy, who wasn't attracted to men, assumed she was a lesbian.

"I have slept with a couple of women, and it was just sort of, 'Oh, well, OK, we've done that now, so we don't have to ever do it again, right,'" she said.

Glancy ultimately decided that she's asexual -- a label Davidson has called problematic.

"You might as well label yourself not curious, unadventurous, narrow-minded, blind to possibilities. That's what happens when you label yourself as sexually neutered," Davidson said.

Some Asexuals Can Have a Change of Heart

Jay said his group is not trying to paint anyone into a corner. "The thing about the asexual community is that we're not a place people come to to stop exploring themselves. We don't want to slap a label on people and then have that confine them," he said.

It's true that even the most vocal asexuals can have a change of heart. To their astonishment, Victoria Glancy and her fiancé, Karl Hodgetts, recently discovered that their passions under the covers had been ignited.

Glancy said she and Hodgetts had been getting very close to having sex recently. And Hodgetts is open to that possibility. "I just feel completely comfortable with Victoria. I don't think I've ever felt so comfortable with someone. And so I'm willing to, you know, try things," he said.

So are Glancy and Hodgetts just ammunition for critics who say asexuals simply haven't found the right partners for themselves?

That doesn't matter to Glancy, because, she said, there's a possibility she won't want to have sex — or have it more than once.

"I could have sex with Karl one time and go, 'Oh, OK, saw what that was like,' and then not like it," she said.

At first, Glancy said, she felt a bit uncomfortable acknowledging her sexual attraction to her fiancé.

"When we were first kind of fooling around, and I'm like, 'Oh, I'm not supposed to like this.' But then that's stupid. I mean, you're just are who you are," she told Chang.

Although they hadn't yet had sex when Chang spoke with them, Glancy and Hodgetts removed themselves from the asexuality Web site. For the remaining members, giving voice to asexuality is still a proud mission.

Chang asked Jay: "If I had a pill that I could give you to make you sexual, would you want it?"

"I would not take a pill to become a sexual person. I'm having way too much fun as an asexual person," he said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Joy Davidson character is hilarious...

Sex is a fabulous, enormously pleasurable aspect of life. And your saying you don't miss it is like someone in a sense who's color blind saying, 'I don't miss color.' Of course, you don't miss what you've never had...You might as well label yourself not curious, unadventurous, narrow-minded, blind to possibilities. That's what happens when you label yourself as sexually neutered

What the hell? The color blindness analogy is apropos, since color blindess is not a choice, nor can it be cured. Then with the labels, though, that makes no sense. Is that to say that color blind people who label themselves as color blind and who aren't looking for a cure are necessarily not curious, unadventurous, narrow-minded, and blind to possibilities?

That's ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But Joy Davidson, a certified sex therapist, believes Jay and his fellow asexuals may be shortchanging themselves with the asexual label.

"Sex is a fabulous, enormously pleasurable aspect of life. And your saying you don't miss it is like someone in a sense who's color blind saying, 'I don't miss color.' Of course, you don't miss what you've never had," Davidson said.

Of course some of us have had sex and found that we were always right - its not fabulous, not is it enormously pleasurable. It was okay for me, but not so great that I'd ever seek it out. Some people find roller coasters thrilling, others aren't interested in them at all. Some people find listening to rock music to be the most positively intense experience in their lives, others don't care for it. Some people love sex, others don't care for it.

Its strange how people remove logic as soon as sex comes into play.

You might as well label yourself not curious, unadventurous, narrow-minded, blind to possibilities. That's what happens when you label yourself as sexually neutered," Davidson said.

So in order to be open minded you must refuse to admit the possibility that some people just aren't thrilled about sex? How is refusing to admit this possibility mean you are curious, open minded and seeing possibilities with a wide eye view. I don't get this line of thinking. "Uh, you consider that possibility as a valid option - you are so narrow minded and blind to possibilities." Do you follow this as being logical?

Link to post
Share on other sites

eh looks like I have labeled myself "not curious, unadventurous, narrow-minded, blind to possibilities. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
eh looks like I have labeled myself "not curious, unadventurous, narrow-minded, blind to possibilities. "

Well, I do admit we are blind to thinking about possibilities with a limited view point. perhaps that's what she meant and they edited out the word limited.

And if you say that to be adventourous and curious you must never leave the beaten path to explore on your own, to try new things, to discover yourself even if that means going against what you are told you must do than you could say that we are unadventerous and uncurious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I don't understand is why she says that someone who doesn't have sex at all can "miss" it, and the same for the color blind person. Neither of them can miss it, since neither have had the ability to see color or the want to have sex.

She does not make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that too. They're not helping anyone. Maybe their interviews are somehow edited to prove their point, though. We're not seeing the uncut version, here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their actions are playing into the "you've just got to wait for the right person" mentality. Whether or not that's true for them, it really trivializes most of the other thousands of asexuals here who really don't feel the way they do. 20/20 could have picked better representatives.

On an unrelated note, the AVEN membership is approaching 7000, for what it's worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... I don't think that's really the case. I think they're more advocating the fact that as asexuals, we don't necessarily stick ourselves in a box and deny that we could possibly ever have sexual feelings. We allow ourselves to grow and change sexually, even if that means no longer being asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On an unrelated note, the AVEN membership is approaching 7000, for what it's worth.

ha.. thanks for reminding me to look at the member list for spammers :wink: :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. One thing about using "asexual" as a label, it suggests that it is easy to come up with statements that begin, "Asexuals are. . ."

Just because two people call themselves asexual, doesn't mean they have anything else in common other than never having experienced the desire for sex.

Statements like "Asexuals just haven't found the right one yet" may be false, but that doesn't mean they are untrue in all cases. This is something not only nay-sayers should see, but us as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eta Carinae
Ugh.

Pretty damn pissed off at Karl and Victoria right now.

Can I ask why?

I know I really shouldn't be and probably not really being fair, but I'm angry at them for confirming negative stereotypes and making the rest of us look worse. Karl, at least, did have emotional issues leading to him being asexual, and neither of them had met the right person. I'm angry at them for not doing more introspection and realizing these things before they started calling themselves asexual. I'm not really being fair in that, at least in Victoria's case, but still. Way to make my life harder, guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Joy Davidson may be a little, well, best way I can think to say it would be "narrow-minded [and] blind to posssabilities."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eta Carinae
Hmm... I don't think that's really the case. I think they're more advocating the fact that as asexuals, we don't necessarily stick ourselves in a box and deny that we could possibly ever have sexual feelings. We allow ourselves to grow and change sexually, even if that means no longer being asexual.

Okay, I've calmed down a little.

The trouble is twofold, in my opinion.

1. This is an introductory segment. It's for people who've never been exposed to the concept before -- and one of the first things they're going to see are two people who confirm the doubts they're probably having. Karl and Victoria don't just confirm one dismissal, they confirm two: both of them hadn't met the right person, and Karl, at least, had emotional barriers keeping him from being sexual. Perhaps the interview has been badly edited, but that's certainly the impression that the quoted material gives.

2. "Advocating the fact that, as asexuals, we don't necessarily stick ourselves in a box and (...) we allow ourselves to grow and change," particularly in a segment like this, sort of gives credence to the idea that asexuality is just a phase, that it's just a label to use when it's convenient and to toss off when you no longer need it. That while it might be okay, it's not a "real" orientation, on par with heterosexuality. Some of this, I think, is because of the criticisms leveled at asexuals -- I understand the temptation to react with "oh, you're just boxing yourself in" with "no, I'm not, see!" -- and some of it is do to the laissez faire attitudes towards labels in the asexual community. I'm not necessarily saying we need to go all the way to the other extreme, but I think it'd be good to have a little more, "No, dammit, this is what I am and it's not any more likely to change than a straight person is likely to become gay."

I mean, I know Karl and Victoria were picked for this segment before they realized they weren't asexual, and the interview might have been edited to give a certain impression, and they certainly have the right to be sexual if they want, but I just... kind of wish that people whose behavior confirms negative stereotypes would be a little more discreet, you know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I think I see what you're saying, now. I think that's more of an editing problem than something that Vee and K are really to blame for, though. They were just being honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just remember - negative publicity garners more attention than positive publicity. And the more publicity we get the more people will be exposed to the concept.

I'm not mad at Karl and Victoria - it doesn't say why they removed themselves from AVEN - many asexuals do that, and we do have a section for asexuals.

However, I'm disappointed that 20/20 didn't pick a person who could make logical thought out statements in order to counter us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I think I see what you're saying, now. I think that's more of an editing problem than something that Vee and K are really to blame for, though. They were just being honest.

That always reminds me of Homer Simpson and the sexual harassment interview.

By the way, aren't V and K rather young? I mean, I'm older, and I wouldn't do it, mainly because if I were to label myself, I'd stick with "questioning" at best. However, there are many older "confirmed" asexuals who are secure in their orientations and not likely just to "come out of their shells" any time soon. I don't know how likely it would be for them to participate, but they'd probably represent asexuals in a more positive light.

Also, I thought the memberlist was a lot longer, and had just been pruned of spammers. We do get an impressive number of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Heartilly

Wow, that was one of the best articles I've seen yet! I understand why people are upset in regards to Ms. Davidson's comments, but I'm a Communications major in college, and one of the first things they teach you when writing for a news publication is that you need to get quotes from both sides of the argument so that it doesn't sound bias. I think this article is pretty darn informative for people who are unfamiliar with the concept, and I also think the fact that it's up is a very very good sign that they won't cancel the story tonight like they did last time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why there's problems with what they wrote about Karl & Victoria, but I think I'd feel rather uncomfortable if we started screening who was allowed to be interviewed and who was not. If only a narrow definition of asexuals are interviewed, than that will only help continue stereotypes, right? Then more and more people will tell you, "Oh, you can't be asexual!" if you don't fit into the mold. Or, more people will think that you absolutely can't be asexual if you've had or currently have sex, or even if you're curious what it's like.

Anyway, I did like this part:

So are Glancy and Hodgetts just ammunition for critics who say asexuals simply haven't found the right partners for themselves?

That doesn't matter to Glancy, because, she said, there's a possibility she won't want to have sex — or have it more than once.

Because at least it acknowledges that Cate & Liver's story might be a problem with critics...

And this part:

Jay said his group is not trying to paint anyone into a corner. "The thing about the asexual community is that we're not a place people come to to stop exploring themselves. We don't want to slap a label on people and then have that confine them," he said.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually pleased with Cate and Liver's part in the interview.

They show how we aren't a bunch of closed-minded people, and I think represent a fair portion of the type of people who may drift through AVEN and toy with the concept of asexuality.

It should be obvious that sex isn't a high priority to them, still, even if they aren't fitting the asexual label as precisely as they may have before. Did they ever say that they are strictly sexual noww anywhere, anyway? That they've for sure changed their label? I haven't heard that. Correct me if they have, though.

I dunno, I don't think anyone should be harsh on them for speaking the truth, and I still don't consider them any less of a representative than any AVENite that could have been chosen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand why there's problems with what they wrote about Karl & Victoria, but I think I'd feel rather uncomfortable if we started screening who was allowed to be interviewed and who was not. If only a narrow definition of asexuals are interviewed, than that will only help continue stereotypes, right? Then more and more people will tell you, "Oh, you can't be asexual!" if you don't fit into the mold. Or, more people will think that you absolutely can't be asexual if you've had or currently have sex, or even if you're curious what it's like.

There is only one reason I disagree with this. I can think of one occasion where a member insisted that AVEN and asexuality was for people that never, ever feel any sexual desire at all. Of course anyone who'se visited the AVEN main pages knows this isn't true, but is this the kind of person we would want talking about AVEN on national networks? or responding to questions from the curious about asexuality?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I was saying in that post...

but I think I'd feel rather uncomfortable if we started screening who was allowed to be interviewed and who was not.

Did I sound like I meant something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eta Carinae
I understand why there's problems with what they wrote about Karl & Victoria, but I think I'd feel rather uncomfortable if we started screening who was allowed to be interviewed and who was not. If only a narrow definition of asexuals are interviewed, than that will only help continue stereotypes, right? Then more and more people will tell you, "Oh, you can't be asexual!" if you don't fit into the mold. Or, more people will think that you absolutely can't be asexual if you've had or currently have sex, or even if you're curious what it's like.

There is only one reason I disagree with this. I can think of one occasion where a member insisted that AVEN and asexuality was for people that never, ever feel any sexual desire at all. Of course anyone who'se visited the AVEN main pages knows this isn't true, but is this the kind of person we would want talking about AVEN on national networks? or responding to questions from the curious about asexuality?

However, just as a note, Karl and Victoria don't fit any reasonable definition of asexuality. It's one thing to argue over whether or not attraction without drive or drive without attraction constitute asexuality; it's another to say that people who've fooled around in spite of themselves are asexual.

Unrelated to the above, and just for the record, I believe they were both interviewed initially before they realized that oops, they'd screwed up in their knowledge of themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand why there's problems with what they wrote about Karl & Victoria, but I think I'd feel rather uncomfortable if we started screening who was allowed to be interviewed and who was not. If only a narrow definition of asexuals are interviewed, than that will only help continue stereotypes, right? Then more and more people will tell you, "Oh, you can't be asexual!" if you don't fit into the mold. Or, more people will think that you absolutely can't be asexual if you've had or currently have sex, or even if you're curious what it's like.

There is only one reason I disagree with this. I can think of one occasion where a member insisted that AVEN and asexuality was for people that never, ever feel any sexual desire at all. Of course anyone who'se visited the AVEN main pages knows this isn't true, but is this the kind of person we would want talking about AVEN on national networks? or responding to questions from the curious about asexuality?

However, just as a note, Karl and Victoria don't fit any reasonable definition of asexuality. It's one thing to argue over whether or not attraction without drive or drive without attraction constitute asexuality; it's another to say that people who've fooled around in spite of themselves are asexual.

Unrelated to the above, and just for the record, I believe they were both interviewed initially before they realized that oops, they'd screwed up in their knowledge of themselves.

One reason I can say with absolute certainity that I am asexual is that I've had sex - actually a sex filled weekend. If an outsider looked at me for that weekend they would describe me as being hyper sexual. If you discussed it with me, you'd know that although I sometimes iniated it, I never realized why my actions that iniated it were connected to sex. And I enjoy eating a kit kat bar more than I enjoy sex. Which is why I might buy a kit kat bar once or twice a year, and why I haven't had sex since April of 2001.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's one thing to argue over whether or not attraction without drive or drive without attraction constitute asexuality; it's another to say that people who've fooled around in spite of themselves are asexual.

So... just because someone's had sex or decided to try it means they're not asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So... just because someone's had sex or decided to try it means they're not asexual?

No. Obviously, asexuals who have had sex have a bit more credibility in professing their preferences. Don't knock it until you try it, and all that. If people who tried it knock it, then that's their business, and it holds up well in an argument.

What's contradictory here is that the people being interviewed both claimed to have no interest in sex, and in the same breath both admitted to fooling around with each other. Even if they are truly asexual, it's a logical faux pas. If that's just because of 20/20's editing job, then shame on 20/20. If K&V were just not thinking, then shame on K&V.

I don't recommend that AVEN try screening who gets interviewed, but where does one draw the line if it seems apparent that outsiders are speaking for the community and portraying them in a way of which the community would not approve?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they also both said that just because they decide to sleep together doesn't mean that they'll necessarily like it, or want to do it again. They just want to try it. That doesn't seem contradictory to me.

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...