Jump to content
killua_is_coming

My psychiatrist doesn't believe in asexuality

Recommended Posts

killua_is_coming

He's a good psychiatrist, he knows how to prescribe some really good meds. But as a therapist he sucks... I told him how I never enjoyed sex or don't care about it all and that I think I'm asexual and he just said that's impossible... like biologically impossible. He seems to think if you don't want sex you must have some underlying problem causing that. He even recommend me to go to a sexologist or something. It's so frustrating that people think like this. People really make a huge deal out of sex, how annoying...  Some people just don't care for it and that's fine and normal. How is that hard to understand? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KrysLost

this is like the third thread about doctors i've seen in the past hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonman

The thing is, we really have no idea what makes us asexual so it's pretty normal for a therapist or a doctor to view it as some kind of problem or malfunction. By design, we are supposed to want to reproduce.

 

Though, we should say, you have the choice to see your asexuality as something that needs fixing, something that needs accepting or something that needs celebrating. Other people's opinions shouldn't mean anything to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iridium

As I've said on other threads, we're a pretty rare orientation.  This means that a lot of healthcare professionals have no experience with asexuals.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheAbhorrent
Quote

The thing is, we really have no idea what makes us asexual so it's pretty normal for a therapist or a doctor to view it as some kind of problem or malfunction.

Anything can be solved with the right meds, right? 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OptimisticPessimist

I know this is frustrating. Could you direct them to resources or AVEN? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyenAutowegCaptain

If a psychiatrist doesn't believe in asexuality they are inadequately trained, patently obviously haven't read DSM-5, and ought not be practicing 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
killua_is_coming
2 hours ago, OptimisticPessimist said:

I know this is frustrating. Could you direct them to resources or AVEN? 

yeah!  that's probably a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thylacine

Get a new therapist.  That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nidwin
On 9/17/2019 at 8:03 PM, Moonman said:

The thing is, we really have no idea what makes us asexual so it's pretty normal for a therapist or a doctor to view it as some kind of problem or malfunction. By design, we are supposed to want to reproduce.

 

Burden of proof is on you here.

 

Nothing makes us asexual, we are asexual and that's it. It's also not normal at all for a therapist to act like a piece of garbage in my book.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus DarkFox
On 9/17/2019 at 10:06 PM, SkyenAutowegCaptain said:

If a psychiatrist doesn't believe in asexuality they are inadequately trained, patently obviously haven't read DSM-5, and ought not be practicing 

Psychiatrists are not clinical psychologists though, potentially Asexuality are very different between the two where one conflates to libido more than psycho-social sexuality.  Also main land Europe has perhaps a very different medical mental to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
On 9/17/2019 at 8:03 PM, Moonman said:

By design, we are supposed to want to reproduce.

Charles Darwin would like a word with you. :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marlow1

It was a Relationship Therapist that helped me the most. He new about Asexuality, Demisexuality etc and pointed me here to AVEN

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob
On 9/23/2019 at 8:58 AM, Mysticus Insanus said:

Charles Darwin would like a word with you. :P

adaptation through reproduction can still be of a design, just not likely one of any intelligence.

like "Wings a designed to fly"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
53 minutes ago, gisiebob said:

adaptation through reproduction can still be of a design, just not likely one of any intelligence.

like "Wings a designed to fly"

You find wings designed to fly on airplanes, not on birds and insects. Animals have wings resulting from millions of years of accumulated random (!) mutation, with the more adaptively beneficial mutations leading to greater reproductive success.

 

No design there, just survival of the fittest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feys&Florets

*chimes in*

 

Evolution likes variety. Just because a species has a small percentage of non-reproducing members doesn't mean the whole species is a flop. It's not 'survival of the fittest' it's 'survival of the good enough'. If evolution meant perfection, we'd have a 3rd eye in our forehead. We have a recessive organ that can detect light but was evolved out because we don't need it. Many other animals branching out have it, like lizards and fish.

 

Asexuality probably follows the same logic as to why we have gay and lesbian humans. It's beneficial to a tribal setting, which we evolved from. Less offspring are produced, focusing resources for maximum survival of the entire tribe. We're nature's population control.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob
6 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You find wings designed to fly on airplanes, not on birds and insects. Animals have wings resulting from millions of years of accumulated random (!) mutation, with the more adaptively beneficial mutations leading to greater reproductive success.

 

No design there, just survival of the fittest.

I do not think your argument of insoluble semantics is valuable to the opinion that we share. could there be something lost in translation, like in german (hope I am remembering you right) the wording of 'design' requres a 'designer'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
27 minutes ago, gisiebob said:

I do not think your argument of insoluble semantics is valuable to the opinion that we share. could there be something lost in translation, like in german (hope I am remembering you right) the wording of 'design' requres a 'designer'?

You're saying that's not the case in English? 🤨

 

(And yup, native German speaker, you remember that right.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gisiebob
1 hour ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You're saying that's not the case in English? 🤨

 

(And yup, native German speaker, you remember that right.)

it's usually an implication, but not necessarily. like if you found a curved stick you could say "this stick is designed to hit people around corners" because the form fits the function, even though the function is novel. (also sorry about the massive off topic. AVEN is a good resource to give your psychiatrist)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pheedre
On 9/23/2019 at 11:58 AM, Mysticus Insanus said:

Charles Darwin would like a word with you. :P

I just hate the "reproduction" argument in general, I'm sorry, but as if people having sex with random people are thinking about reproduction...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abaculus

Sorry that your thread seems to have been hijacked by the evolution argument, Killua. I’d also reccomend finding another therapist, unless you yourself view your aceness as a problem that you’d like solved. No matter how good they are on other fronts, I can’t imagine it being good for you to be regularly exposed to the idea that your sexual orientation is a defect. 

 

As for the evolution thing, I can’t remember which bird it was, but I once read a study about this bird species had asexual members, who tended to help raise the offspring of their sisters, and thus their own genes were propagated that way. 

 

Ultimately, evolution doesn’t design us optimally for reproduction. It just means that if we’re not capable of surviving and passing in our genes in some way then our genes end up not being represented in the future of the species. However, not reproducing directly yourself does not immediately disqualify you. Maybe aces exist because there is an evolutionary benefit to having people around who don’t have their own kids to take care of. Maybe aces exist simply because their existence isn’t enough to prevent their siblings from reproducing. Maybe aces exist because being ace isn’t genetic, and therefore evolution has nothing to do with it. No matter which of these is true, it doesn’t make being ace in any sense wrong. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...