plope7 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The subject line alone is gonna get me "flamed", I know...but playing the devil's advocate...so many disorders today are slapped with a title because doctors and/or patients don't want to spend the money/research or time to treat them. How do we know that "asexuality" isn't just a term stuck on a sexual disfunction or disorder? Are we admitting defeat by calling ourselves "asexual"? Link to post Share on other sites
aesthesia Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 It's quite possible that "asexual" is just a label. There hasn't been a lot of research into it. However, I'd say that what really matters is that most people who identify as asexual are happy with it and don't feel the need to be "fixed". I don't think we're admitting defeat by adopting the term; we're creating awareness that can lead to new studies and research. Link to post Share on other sites
Tool1989 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Agreed 100%. It doesn't matter the label you have on you. What matters is what you feel about yourself. You are who you want to be. Link to post Share on other sites
Dargon Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Just wanted to say that some psychologists are for removing (or redefining)many of the "disorders" that do not actually cause any distress among the "afflicted," such as hyposexual disorder. As stated above, I call myself asexual, and I have absolutely zero desire to be "fixed." Link to post Share on other sites
Tool1989 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Well being Asexual isn't a disorder or a disease....they used to feel the same way about people who are gay or are lesbians or are bi sexual. Hopefully therapists and physcologists will start to see that textbooks don't always show everything nor are they always right... Link to post Share on other sites
KAGU143 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 How do we know that "asexuality" isn't just a term stuck on a sexual disfunction or disorder? We know, because: 1) The majority of asexuals are perfectly able to function sexually IF THEY WANT TO. They have no sexual dysfunction or impotence. 2) There is no "disorder" if the alleged sufferer is not bothered or impaired in any way. -GB Link to post Share on other sites
Lucy Locket Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I couldn't care less if it is a "disease" or "disorder". I'm not suffering physically or mentally, and I have an easier life than any sexual. I like being the way I am. Link to post Share on other sites
l'héros Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I'm at the point to where if it is a disorder, well, I don't mind this « disorder », outside of probably not ever having a « serious » relationship with someone. That sucks, but, well everyone suffers. Tough. Might as well suck it up cause I can't change who I am. Besides, that's their problem, not mine. So screw them for trying to tell me what's normal. I'm just trying to live. I mean, if they've got that much vested interest in my sex life (or lack thereof) they should really pick up a damn hobby or something. Link to post Share on other sites
square peg Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The word 'asexual' is just a description of how some people feel. If what causes that is some form of disorder, the description is no less valid. There's nothing in the definition that rules out the possibilty of an underlying disorder, any more than someone autistic couldn't simultaneously be described or 'labelled' as 'distant'. I think the twenty-first century is a good time to be asexual, even if it is caused by a disorder, just as a cholera outbreak is a good time to have cystic fibrosis. 8) Link to post Share on other sites
thylacine Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 "I'm not suffering physically or mentally, and I have an easier life than any sexual. I like being the way I am." I quite agree. We don't have a lot of the anxiety & tension that other people have in their lives. Link to post Share on other sites
Rabger Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 How do we know that "asexuality" isn't just a term stuck on a sexual disfunction or disorder?Are we admitting defeat by calling ourselves "asexual"? No. Some of us (not many, but some) people have actually researched orientations. They are WAY more varied than society is willing to admit. I figure there are 6 types of sexual and 6 types of romantic orientations, and then the numerous variations when you take the two into account. You can't admit defeat by calling yourself asexual if you're asexual. Defeat of what? Accepting that you'll never shove yourself into a box? Celebrate. Link to post Share on other sites
jr1 Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 We just have to be ourselves Link to post Share on other sites
Wolf X Omega Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 A Label is something that is defined by the one who uses it In other words, asexual for me, is thinking of sex the same that I think of sports, Boring and unecessary. Link to post Share on other sites
osito Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 'Dysfunction': a label 'Disorder': a label These are the sorts of labels that people don't choose for themselves, but rather are pasted on them by 'experts'. They don't peel off very easily, and only 'experts' have the authority to peel them off. 'Expert' : a label. If I choose a label for myself I do so because it empowers me. 'Asexual' is empowering, because it specifies what I have always known myself to be, helps me fully own what I am, and comes with a community attached. I have no interest in being 'fixed'. Link to post Share on other sites
FISH' Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 The better question is, what ISN'T a disorder these days? Link to post Share on other sites
AliceInWonderland Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 How do we know that "asexuality" isn't just a term stuck on a sexual disfunction or disorder?Are we admitting defeat by calling ourselves "asexual"? No. Some of us (not many, but some) people have actually researched orientations. They are WAY more varied than society is willing to admit. I figure there are 6 types of sexual and 6 types of romantic orientations, and then the numerous variations when you take the two into account. You can't admit defeat by calling yourself asexual if you're asexual. Defeat of what? Accepting that you'll never shove yourself into a box? Celebrate. Hi Rabger. Just curious, but what are the six types? I know there's hetero, homo, bi and a. I assume that's right. So, what are the other two? Link to post Share on other sites
Chiaroscuro Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I don't think we're admitting defeat by adopting the term; we're creating awareness that can lead to new studies and research. I think this is right on the money. Jargon emerges when people need to talk about something specific that doesn't have a name yet. Asexuality is the "name" that's been collectively agreed upon to define people who have a certain sexual outlook. There's nothing wrong with that. It's healthy. It means the un-namable is now something we can discuss in the open. -Chiaroscuro Link to post Share on other sites
cijay Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 The subject line alone is gonna get me "flamed", I know...but playing the devil's advocate...so many disorders today are slapped with a title because doctors and/or patients don't want to spend the money/research or time to treat them. How do we know that "asexuality" isn't just a term stuck on a sexual disfunction or disorder?Are we admitting defeat by calling ourselves "asexual"? Good question. If I really gave a shit I might look into it. For now I'll just say that I don't feel defeated one bit in calling myself asexual. It's sheer laziness, easier to say that I'm asexual than "I'm not interested in a sexual relationship with anyone and don't experience sexual attraction." As a matter of fact, I'm even lazier than that, I do TV and magazine interviews and let people I know learn it that way. Link to post Share on other sites
oneofthesun Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Are we admitting defeat by calling ourselves "asexual"? There can't be defeat if there's no competition. Link to post Share on other sites
endplusone Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 While I'm not really big on labeling, I've come to realize that labels can be something empowering... it brings people together because they recognize that they have a common feeling or interest. And the asexual communit is definitely an example of this. Link to post Share on other sites
BleedingThrough Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 ^I agree. Labeling can bring people together. And for me I know my feelings about sex have an actual word for it and that I'm not alone. Link to post Share on other sites
alicaurusrex Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yeah, for me it was a massive relief knowing that it had a real name, and gives me a label so I feel part of a community that 'fits' at last. Personally, I don't care if maybe it is a 'disorder' or possibly curable... it doesn't feel like a problem to me anymore (not at least now I do have a label for it) - for me, it's like the 'diagnosis' was the cure in itself. I am comfortable with it now that I have a label for it, and it's no longer a worry for me. Link to post Share on other sites
kt8 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Doesn't that pretty much mean that EVERYONE has a disorder? They ALL have labels: "straight", "gay", "lesbian", aren't these labels? The problem is that people go around thinking that there's a "default" label, and that anything else is NOT NORMAL. But everyone's so different, how CAN there be a default? -Katie Link to post Share on other sites
jcortese Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 It's not a disorder in the typical way for me, but it IS very predictably associated with a number of medical conditions, so having a word to refer to it is useful in that instance. I don't mind. Labels are important to help people grasp what is real about them and that what theya re also exists in the world beyond themselves. And it's pointless to say that labels "shouldn't" matter. We're a linguistic species. Our brains are hard-wired to label things. the things that we consider meaningful to us and the things the existence of which we want to acknowledge are often the same category as the things we give names to. Now, that's not to say that the constant rehashing of the tiniest detail of taxonomy doesn't get on my nerves now and again, but having a name for people who have a considerably lower sex drive than average doesn't really bother me. We specify handedness and hair color as well. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 "but it IS very predictably associated with a number of medical conditions" Don't think that's proven. Just what "medical" conditions are associated with asexuality, any more than they're associated with any other type of orientation? Link to post Share on other sites
sonofzeal Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 "but it IS very predictably associated with a number of medical conditions"Don't think that's proven. Just what "medical" conditions are associated with asexuality, any more than they're associated with any other type of orientation? Aspergers Syndrom, actually. You may notice we have a lot of Aspies here; last I checked, asexuals were about six times more likely to have Aspergers than the general population. On the other hand, that's still nowhere close to the majority of asexuals (most of us are not Aspies), and from what I know it looks more than probable that most Aspies are not asexuals. They do seem to tend in that direction though. I should also note that most medical conditions that reduce sex drive don't have a major impact on sexual attraction. Beyond what I've already mentioned, I can't think of any one disorder that shows up consistantly among our userbase, or is specifically known for eliminating sexual attraction. Link to post Share on other sites
jcortese Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 "but it IS very predictably associated with a number of medical conditions"Don't think that's proven. Just what "medical" conditions are associated with asexuality, any more than they're associated with any other type of orientation? Temporal lobe epilepsy, which I have. Definitely associated with it, along with a number of other things that I'm rather happy I have. The only thing I wish I could have that TLE precludes is a bit of emotional equanimity now and again. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I've looked at some stuff on temporal lobe epilepsy. They can co-exist, or temporal lobe epilepsy can cause a person to hav no interest in sex, but that doesn't mean that asexuals are any more likely to have or develop a condition such as TLE. There's coincident stuff, and then there's cause and effect. Some conditions cause deafness, but that doesn't mean that deaf people are likely to have those conditions. We don't know for certain what causes any sexual orientation yet -- we only know that various sexual orientations exist. I don't have Aspie symptoms and I don't have TLE, so my asexuality isn't "associated" with those conditions. I do have some other conditions, however, which other asexuals may have also; should we consider they're associated with asexuality? No proof. It would be easier emotionally if there were definite medical associations -- we could simply shut people up by telling them it's a medically-associated condition. We can tell them to shut up anyway, but that's not always pleasant. Link to post Share on other sites
jcortese Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 I've looked at some stuff on temporal lobe epilepsy. They can co-exist, or temporal lobe epilepsy can cause a person to hav no interest in sex, but that doesn't mean that asexuals are any more likely to have or develop a condition such as TLE. There's coincident stuff, and then there's cause and effect. Which is exactly what I said, if you actually go back and read it. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 True -- you said associated. (Backs off) Sorry for two identical posts; inadvertent finger slippage. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.