Asexuality lecture at my university!

[endplusone]

Alright, thanks! I don't want to misguide other people, especially when it's critical to some people here, so I'm trying to present facts as adequately as I can.

[andrew_w]

It's difficult to generalize, but I suspect that hyposexuality causes a great deal of distress in terms of the problems it causes in relationships. Many people, both men and women, seek medical treatment for it (I have).

That's why I said that it usually doesn't cause problems in and of itself. Most of the time (although there are probably exceptions), problems resulting from hyposexuality (or asexuality) are simply due to mis-matched levels of desire. The same thing could happen in a relationship between a hypersexual and a "normal" sexual, or an asexual and a sexual (and I consider asexuality distinct from hyposexuality, although there isn't a definite line between the two), or even someone on the high end of "normal" and the low end of "normal". It makes more sense to consider problems due to mis-matched levels of desire as a problem of the relationship and not of one particular individual.

[Lord Happy Toast]

Something I heard in a general psychology class about hyposexuality has really stuck with me. The professor did a section on the DSM-IV, going through the list of mental disorders, and when he got to "hypoactive sexual desire disorder" (HSDD), I remember him saying, roughly, "You may not think low sex drive is a mental disorder, and you would be right. But therapists need to diagnose people with something to get insurance companies to pay for therapy." I don't know the extent to which this is agreed upon, but it makes sense to me. Since people go to therapists for problems with their sex life, it helps if they can have a label to get insurance companies to pay, and so therapists and write about it to help other therapists who have to deal with similar problems.

As several people have already said, HSDD isn't a problem that a person can have--it is a problem that a relationships can have (very different levels of desire among the two people.) I've read that because of this, therapy for people with HSDD usually is done as therapy for the couple rather than for the individual. This is pretty clear if you look at common causes—stress, not being sexually attracted to one’s partner, having become emotionally distant from one’s parter.

From what I can tell (and this is just an impression), most research on HSDD and similar things has not been done with the primary aim of advancing our knowledge of human sexuality. The main goal is to understand hyposexuality to help therapists treat people. I suspect this goal has had a strong influence on how the research has been conducted. There is an assumption that some level of sexual desire is normative. Thus, that some people have no interest in having sex and that that's okay may be readily acknowledged by some individuals, but it not acknowledged by the profession as a whole—the is clear from the research that has been done.

For a long time, psychotherapy worked under the assumptions that heterosexuality was normal and that homosexuality as abnormal and something that should be fixed. This is no longer the position and all major professional health organizations (at least in the US) take a stance that being gay/lesbian can be just as healthy as as being straight. I recall in queer theory seeing the term, "the hegemony of heteronormativity" to refer to the assumption that standard heterosexual desires and relationships are "normal" and that everyone should conform to them—this doesn’t work well for people who don’t fit into the categories created by the belief that everyone should be heterosexual.

The mental health profession--like the rest of society--has, as a whole, operated under the assumptions of "sexualnormativity," though often this has been unintentional. Until recently, there weren't many people insisting on challenging that assumption.

The sociology of science tells us an interesting fact about astronomy: Sometimes new stars form that can be seen from the Earth. Oriental astronomers were aware of this fact for a long time before their western counterparts despite the fact that western astronomy was quite active during that time. So why didn't the western astronomers not see the new stars? The theory that they were working with had no explanation that could allow for new stars to form, so they didn't notice them. The astronomers in the east's beliefs about the heavens didn't preclude the formation of new starts, so they saw them when they appeared.

In what I've found in research that discusses asexuality, a good number of researchers have no problem finding people with eating disorders or who have been sexually abused or who are transsexual, or who have hormonal problems who are asexual. But they have found a lot fewer "normal" people who are medically fine who are asexual. Is it because they don't exist? Or is it because the assumptions of hegemonic sexualnormativity have a priori excluded the possibility of healthy, non-pathological asexuality so what is in fact there has until very recently gone almost entirely unnoticed.

(I've been wanting to get to use the term "hegemonic sexualnormativity" for a while :lol: )

[< retired >]

...You may not think low sex drive is a mental disorder, and you would be right....

Or is it because the assumptions of hegemonic sexualnormativity have a priori excluded the possibility of healthy, non-pathological asexuality so what is in fact there has until very recently gone almost entirely unnoticed.

I'm no expert on psychology, but the one paper I have read on asexuality implies that if a person is suffering because of their low/absent sex drive, then a diagnosis of HSDD would be valid. As mentioned earlier, this suffering may originate from its negative impact on a relationship.

Happy, healthy, perfectly well-adjusted asexuals don't appear in the offices of mental health practitioners. So, it may not be fair to blame the clinical or research community for their lack of knowledge regarding this human subpopulation.

[echidna]

Just a few quick thoughts:

- it is important to think what you really mean when something isn't a disorder if it doesn't cause distress. That isn't as simple as it sounds. For example, delusions may not cause distress to the person having them but a doctor would still consider that a disorder. On the other hand, a homosexual who has grown up in a society where homosexuality is considered a sin may be extremely distressed, but a doctor would consider that a socially-imposed problem, rather than the disorder of homosexuality itself. For some people it may be difficult to disentangle the distress caused by an asexual feeling inadequate and freakish living in a sexual society, from the feeling of a sexual person who they can't express something they really want to be able to express.

- it is important to remember that there are two levels at which to discuss all these ideas: the level of the individual and the population. It is fine to have core abstract concepts of what asexuality, hyposexuality etc are, then accept that there are gradations between them, and then accept that it may be difficult to 'label' any single individual as one or the other. That is the case with a lot of human conditions (and biology in general!).

As long as the core concepts are useful to describe some people, they should be recognised.

- following from the point above, my distinction between asexuality and hyposexuality would be simple - an asexual experiences NO sexual attraction while a hyposexual does experience some and has a low sex drive to go with that attraction. The latter would be able to call themselves hetero, homo or bisexual depending on what gender of person they are sexually attracted to. The former could not. That is why asexuality should be recognised as a fourth orientation. The asexual doesn't really have a concept of what sexual attraction feels like, but the hyposexual would know and could imagine having that in a stronger ('normal') form. This may be confusing in practice for romantic asexuals, asexuals who masturbate etc but if you first accept the existence of the 'hard core' aromantic asexuals as people without a disorder, it is easier to extend that to others who have some related elements of sexuality but not the ones used for defining asexuality (i.e. sexual attraction as opposed to romantic attraction or sex drive). Given that these are so often seen as a package, it is important that the audience are made aware of them as distinct phenomona early on so they don't see other points as contradictory.

- following from my distinction above, asexuality could not be 'cured' in the same way that it is accepted homosexuality cannot be 'cured'. If a hyposexual person wanted to be more sexual, there might be pharmacological or psychological treatment to help them. If they didn't want to change, then obviously that's not an issue.

- I think it is important that sexuality is recognised as an orientation rather than absence of sexual attraction just not being condemed as a disorder. If people grow up in a society where it is known about and accepted, individuals who realise they are asexual will have a much more positive view of themselves than if as they grow up they realise they are fundamentally different, worry about that for a long time, and eventually end up with a professional saying "that's fine". (Obviously not all asexuals worry in the first place, but I think many do have a negative experience of some sort.) Without asexuality being discussed alongside the other sexual orientations, that level of awareness and acceptance is unlikely to occur. The way sexuality is currently discussed in terms of the gender of person people are attracted to implicitly excludes those who aren't attracted to anyone.

Hope that makes sense and isn't too waffly. Good luck with your presentation.

Echidna

[endplusone]

Thank you very much for the input! I'll probably have a few more questions as I finalize the presentation. I still have a few weeks. Thanks again. :)

[DavidG]

I don't think there's anything helpful I can say that hasn't already been said, but good luck with the lecture! The more people that know about it, the better.

[endplusone]

I can't remember if I said this earlier, but I will be teaching at two lectures now... one on the main campus and another at an affiliated college to a couple hundred more people. The material might possibly be worked into future lectures and course content as well, but it's hard to know at this point.

Another question I just thought of... has there been any testing regarding human hormone levels? I read about there being tests done with sheep and it was found that there was no difference from sexuals, but I can't remember if I've found anything that proposed there being a difference in certain neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine, or androgen levels.

[< retired >]

I read about there being tests done with sheep and it was found that there was no difference from sexuals...

Hmmmm....I read the above sentence and thought:

1) researchers somehow distinguished asexual from sexual sheep, and ran tests on the two subpopulations [how???], or

2) researchers compared sheep with human sexuals [why????]

Tread lightly here before you add any material to your presentation!! :lol:

[Lord Happy Toast]

Research on the relationship between asexuality and other things, so far as I know has not been done. I suspect that related research has been done in the past--although without the specific goal of understanding asexuality as we understand it. Consequently, they wouldn't have been asking the questions that we are asking. (I would imagine that people would have looked more at "desire to have sex" than at "sexual attraction," but I don't know.)

Secondly, even if people found that asexuals have, on average, lower levels of androgen hormones than sexuals, we would have to be careful how to interpret this. It could mean that low levels of hormones could be the "cause" of asexuality for some people--but not for all. There could be some asexuals with average hormone levels and we only find "low" hormone levels when we take the average. Furthermore, suppose that we were to find that asexuals had hormones levels generally in the lower part of the "normal" range (where my own serum testosterone happens to be) and that people in the "low normal" range are more likely to be asexual than those in the "average" range, it still doesn't prove that the hormone issue causes asexuality because there could be (almost certainly are since it is still "normal") large numbers of sexuals with similar levels of hormones. Finally, even if low hormones "caused" asexuality it would not necessarily mean that asexuality could be "cured" with hormone treatment. It could be the case that asexuality isn't caused by low androgen levels, but by low androgen levels at puberty when patterns of sexual attraction in sexuals (i.e. sexual orientation) develops.

As a comment on the difference between asexuality and hyposexuality, I think that echidna's answer is the one that should be used, but not the one that has been used. If asexuality comes to be more widely accepted as a sexual orientation, I suspect that some attempt to distinguish between them will be made. However, I doubt that this has been the case up to this point. Since HSDD is has to do with lower than "normal" sex drive (and no desire at all qualifies) then as long as, 1) it isn't caused by a medical reason or soemthing else in the DSM and 2) it causes personal distress, it can be diagnosed as such. If an asexual is distressed by their sexual orientation (especially if they don't see it as such), they would, under the present definition, qualify as having the "life-long" subtype of HSDD.

[Hallucigenia]

researchers somehow distinguished asexual from sexual sheep, and ran tests on the two subpopulations [how???]

It's quite simple, actually. Rams (male sheep) were put in a pen where they could see other sheep, and the researchers watched them and observed which other sheep they tried to approach sexually: some went towards females, some to other males, and some just sat there and enjoyed the grass they were eating. This last group comprised about 2% to 3% of the rams, and they were considered asexual.

As for the test, you just take out a bit of blood and scan for testosterone same as you would with a human.

The researchers weren't directly comparing sheep to sexual humans, but it's interesting that sheep run the gamut of orientations, nonetheless.

[echidna]

I'm inclined to agree with Chooseyourbattles - it's dodgy ground comparing animals and humans. Asexuality is about sexual attraction not behaviour. In humans they are not necessarily linked. However, if we assume that animals always do what they feel like doing, perhaps we could study behaviour and infer attraction. Even then though, absence of sexual behaviour in one situation does not mean these sheep never behave sexually towards other sheep. When doing experiments with animals, there is always a lot of variation so to say a ram that didn't mate with sheep offered to it in an experiment must be asexual is just extrapolating too far (in my opinion!). Perhaps they were hungry, had a headache, didn't like the people watching etc etc (pick your own more serious examples!). On the other hand, some rams mounting other rams does say something, though not necessarily that these rams are 'homosexual'.

Although animal studies can be useful in hunderstanding the physiology of sexuality, I don't think it helps much for phenomena as complex as sexual orientiations. I think the area is therefore best avoided.

By the way, have you checked the links in the AVENWiki to the few papers directly studying asexuality, and the historical overview presented there? I particularly recommend Bogeart's 'Towards a conceptual understanding' paper. The recent survey ones are good as far as they go but when interpreting their significance you have to think just who the respondents are representing, and consider what are causes, effects or confounded variables.

[DaniTheGirl]

This has beena great thread to read. Have you presented yet?

[endplusone]

Not yet! I present March 19th and 20th at two different locations. I'm almost done compiling information, and wow, it's a lot. I might have to cut it back depending upon the time. I don't think I want to speak any longer than an hour with questions from the class.

Thanks to everyone who has posted in this thread and offered opinions and information.

[Nonz16]

Congratulations - i only wish i could be there to hear it!

[rotifer]

will there be a way of viewing the speech is thier a transcript you could post , or a powerpoint you could link to?

[endplusone]

I could put my notes up after I've lectured. I also have PowerPoint prepared so I can put that up here as well. I'll let people here know about the general feedback (if I get any). There will be an option of asking questions both during the lecture and after I'm finished, during the break, and students will be able to contact me by e-mail. I don't expect people to talk during class, mostly because the class is so large and people feel it would be disruptive, but I might get a few who talk to me afterwards. I just hope I don't get backlash. It'll be interesting to see what people think and whether any point is raised that we haven't considered before.

[Cicero]

I'm bound to forget on the actual day so good luck in advance! I hope you get a good response!

[Virgo]

I just found this thread, so I wanted to heap my wishes of good luck on top of the pile. Also, germaine to the discussion of hyposexuality as a disorder, I'm reasonably certain that the diagnostic guidelines state that the patient must be distressed by his/her lack of libido. That conveniently eliminates all the happy AVENites from that camp. :)

[endplusone]

Went well. :) One lecture down, one to go. I'm tired, I don't know how people who teach speak for that long.

[endplusone]

Went well again tonight. Thanks to everyone who provided support. People were really interested in the discussion tonight and many had questions (none that haven't come up before, but I'll see if I get any further feedback by email). I'm going to try to get my notes and PowerPoint up here as soon as possible. I'm going to be busy for a bit but I'll fit it in at some point. My notes aren't that exciting anyways, since it's mostly what I've found through AVEN resources.

[AVENguy]

Can you post your notes and a link to your powerpoint on the wiki?

[endplusone]

I'm not very good with Internet stuff, but I can check it out and try. My notes include a lot of talk about my personal life and stuff that I filled in... some is in point form and some is in detail, but I'd be happy to upload if people want to see.

I should also say in advice that I apologize to two members of the board. There are instances where two quotes were taken from this space that my prof assured should be part of the PowerPoint to give an idea of what posting on AVEN is like. I did not ask permission due to this being done last minute, however members were credited for their words.

[Lehcar]

Hey! That's awesome, and good to hear that it went well! I'm actually doing something very similar this Wednesday, and I'd love to hear what you chose to include in your talk. I'm speaking to uni students, but not part of a class - here's hoping that it goes as well as it sounds yours did, and I really appreciate your thread providing great discussion on how people want to be represented. Anyway, glad to know it went well!

[endplusone]

Okay, I hope this works. I haven't used Google Documents before.

Just a note:

- A quote was used from the frontpage by Lucinda

- A quote was used from a thread by Mindlife

- Also, thank you to Cur1ous for giving me permission to include data from what they compiled from surveys

I utilized many resources on the AVEN website and Wiki, as well as from what I have read and observed over the years on the board, within, articles, and so on. I do not mean to generalize but due to limited time and the amount of information I wanted to cover I feel as if I had to. Please be aware that I assured the class that everyone's background and experiences are different and what I was saying was not necessarily felt by everyone. If anything I have said is offensive, please let me know.

My notes parallel the PowerPoint, so some sentences aren't full where I was going to explain definitions and should be read with the PowerPoint.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd882htz_9cdkf9cc6

http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd882htz_0fvnfk3r8

Edit: Are the links working? I'm not sure if they are only viewable by me, or by those who have a gmail account.

[AntiBubble]

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd882htz_9cdkf9cc6

http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd882htz_0fvnfk3r8

Edit: Are the links working? I'm not sure if they are only viewable by me, or by those who have a gmail account.

The notes appear to be visible to everyone, but you need a Google account of some description to view the presentation. I don't have a Gmail account, just a googledocs one and I had to log in for the presentation, but not the notes (I read the notes while I was resetting my gdocs password :lol:).

Good stuff :)

[endplusone]

Hm, I have no idea why it's doing that. Anyone know what I'm doing wrong?

EDIT: I saw that Lehcar used something called "Skydrive", so I tried uploading there. Here's the link...

http://cid-f7baec3be14a90b7.skydrive.live....ualityFinal.ppt

Let me know if it works.

[Lord Happy Toast]

Congratulations on the lecture. I really enjoyed reading your notes and presentation.

[endplusone]

Thank you. :D It felt really good to talk about it. I can't even describe the feeling.

[< retired >]

Let me know if it works.

It's not working for me. I'm not downloading a .ppt but a .ppt.html, and it's not opening in PowerPoint. I don't know what the problem is.