Jump to content

Asexual Study


Rishkaana

Recommended Posts

I just read a pretty awesome study on asexuality {asexual women, to be precise} and I don't remember seeing it on AVEN anywhere, so I thought I'd share :D

http://www.springerlink.com/content/th33mg9r647tj2v8/fulltext.html

"Asexuality can be defined as a lifelong lack of sexual attraction. Empirical research on asexuality reveals significantly lower self-reported sexual desire and arousal and lower rates of sexual activity; however, the speculation that there may also be an impaired psychophysiological sexual arousal response has never been tested. The aim of this study was to compare genital (vaginal pulse amplitude; VPA) and subjective sexual arousal in asexual and non-asexual women. Thirty-eight women between the ages of 19 and 55 years (10 heterosexual, 10 bisexual, 11 homosexual, and 7 asexual) viewed neutral and erotic audiovisual stimuli while VPA and self-reported sexual arousal and affect were measured. There were no significant group differences in the increased VPA and self-reported sexual arousal response to the erotic film between the groups. Asexuals showed significantly less positive affect, sensuality-sexual attraction, and self-reported autonomic arousal to the erotic film compared to the other groups; however, there were no group differences in negative affect or anxiety. Genital-subjective sexual arousal concordance was significantly positive for the asexual women and non-significant for the other three groups, suggesting higher levels of interoceptive awareness among asexuals. Taken together, the findings suggest normal subjective and physiological sexual arousal capacity in asexual women and challenge the view that asexuality should be characterized as a sexual dysfunction."

Pretty neat stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a pretty awesome study on asexuality {asexual women, to be precise} and I don't remember seeing it on AVEN anywhere, so I thought I'd share :D

http://www.springerlink.com/content/th33mg9r647tj2v8/fulltext.html

"Asexuality can be defined as a lifelong lack of sexual attraction. Empirical research on asexuality reveals significantly lower self-reported sexual desire and arousal and lower rates of sexual activity; however, the speculation that there may also be an impaired psychophysiological sexual arousal response has never been tested. The aim of this study was to compare genital (vaginal pulse amplitude; VPA) and subjective sexual arousal in asexual and non-asexual women. Thirty-eight women between the ages of 19 and 55 years (10 heterosexual, 10 bisexual, 11 homosexual, and 7 asexual) viewed neutral and erotic audiovisual stimuli while VPA and self-reported sexual arousal and affect were measured. There were no significant group differences in the increased VPA and self-reported sexual arousal response to the erotic film between the groups. Asexuals showed significantly less positive affect, sensuality-sexual attraction, and self-reported autonomic arousal to the erotic film compared to the other groups; however, there were no group differences in negative affect or anxiety. Genital-subjective sexual arousal concordance was significantly positive for the asexual women and non-significant for the other three groups, suggesting higher levels of interoceptive awareness among asexuals. Taken together, the findings suggest normal subjective and physiological sexual arousal capacity in asexual women and challenge the view that asexuality should be characterized as a sexual dysfunction."

Pretty neat stuff.

It does not take scientific study to observe and conclude that, within a species that survives through sexual reproduction, asexuality is a dysfunctional state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a pretty awesome study on asexuality {asexual women, to be precise} and I don't remember seeing it on AVEN anywhere, so I thought I'd share :D

http://www.springerlink.com/content/th33mg9r647tj2v8/fulltext.html

"Asexuality can be defined as a lifelong lack of sexual attraction. Empirical research on asexuality reveals significantly lower self-reported sexual desire and arousal and lower rates of sexual activity; however, the speculation that there may also be an impaired psychophysiological sexual arousal response has never been tested. The aim of this study was to compare genital (vaginal pulse amplitude; VPA) and subjective sexual arousal in asexual and non-asexual women. Thirty-eight women between the ages of 19 and 55 years (10 heterosexual, 10 bisexual, 11 homosexual, and 7 asexual) viewed neutral and erotic audiovisual stimuli while VPA and self-reported sexual arousal and affect were measured. There were no significant group differences in the increased VPA and self-reported sexual arousal response to the erotic film between the groups. Asexuals showed significantly less positive affect, sensuality-sexual attraction, and self-reported autonomic arousal to the erotic film compared to the other groups; however, there were no group differences in negative affect or anxiety. Genital-subjective sexual arousal concordance was significantly positive for the asexual women and non-significant for the other three groups, suggesting higher levels of interoceptive awareness among asexuals. Taken together, the findings suggest normal subjective and physiological sexual arousal capacity in asexual women and challenge the view that asexuality should be characterized as a sexual dysfunction."

Pretty neat stuff.

It does not take scientific study to observe and conclude that, within a species that survives through sexual reproduction, asexuality is a dysfunctional state.

But it's not a sexual dysfunction, or at least that's what these results suggest. Asexuality comes from somewhere outside the sexual system. I'm just happy to have proof that my orientation can't be cured with a pill, which is what so many people still seem to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist

I just read a pretty awesome study on asexuality {asexual women, to be precise} and I don't remember seeing it on AVEN anywhere, so I thought I'd share :D

http://www.springerlink.com/content/th33mg9r647tj2v8/fulltext.html

"Asexuality can be defined as a lifelong lack of sexual attraction. Empirical research on asexuality reveals significantly lower self-reported sexual desire and arousal and lower rates of sexual activity; however, the speculation that there may also be an impaired psychophysiological sexual arousal response has never been tested. The aim of this study was to compare genital (vaginal pulse amplitude; VPA) and subjective sexual arousal in asexual and non-asexual women. Thirty-eight women between the ages of 19 and 55 years (10 heterosexual, 10 bisexual, 11 homosexual, and 7 asexual) viewed neutral and erotic audiovisual stimuli while VPA and self-reported sexual arousal and affect were measured. There were no significant group differences in the increased VPA and self-reported sexual arousal response to the erotic film between the groups. Asexuals showed significantly less positive affect, sensuality-sexual attraction, and self-reported autonomic arousal to the erotic film compared to the other groups; however, there were no group differences in negative affect or anxiety. Genital-subjective sexual arousal concordance was significantly positive for the asexual women and non-significant for the other three groups, suggesting higher levels of interoceptive awareness among asexuals. Taken together, the findings suggest normal subjective and physiological sexual arousal capacity in asexual women and challenge the view that asexuality should be characterized as a sexual dysfunction."

Pretty neat stuff.

It does not take scientific study to observe and conclude that, within a species that survives through sexual reproduction, asexuality is a dysfunctional state.

From that perspective, so is homosexuality, which is also not a sexual dysfunction.

It's also an extraordinarily narrow view of how evolution works. Nonreproductive members of several species propogate their genes just fine, and there are environmental and developmental criteria that encourage organisms to be (permanently or temporarily) nonreproductive that are not in any way a dysfunctional state. Asexuality does not prevent reproduction either; it's not too hard to envision a scenario in which it could give a reproductive advantage (although it does require the subjects to be both aware of the effects of sex and desire children).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a pretty awesome study on asexuality {asexual women, to be precise} and I don't remember seeing it on AVEN anywhere, so I thought I'd share :D

http://www.springerlink.com/content/th33mg9r647tj2v8/fulltext.html

"Asexuality can be defined as a lifelong lack of sexual attraction. Empirical research on asexuality reveals significantly lower self-reported sexual desire and arousal and lower rates of sexual activity; however, the speculation that there may also be an impaired psychophysiological sexual arousal response has never been tested. The aim of this study was to compare genital (vaginal pulse amplitude; VPA) and subjective sexual arousal in asexual and non-asexual women. Thirty-eight women between the ages of 19 and 55 years (10 heterosexual, 10 bisexual, 11 homosexual, and 7 asexual) viewed neutral and erotic audiovisual stimuli while VPA and self-reported sexual arousal and affect were measured. There were no significant group differences in the increased VPA and self-reported sexual arousal response to the erotic film between the groups. Asexuals showed significantly less positive affect, sensuality-sexual attraction, and self-reported autonomic arousal to the erotic film compared to the other groups; however, there were no group differences in negative affect or anxiety. Genital-subjective sexual arousal concordance was significantly positive for the asexual women and non-significant for the other three groups, suggesting higher levels of interoceptive awareness among asexuals. Taken together, the findings suggest normal subjective and physiological sexual arousal capacity in asexual women and challenge the view that asexuality should be characterized as a sexual dysfunction."

Pretty neat stuff.

It does not take scientific study to observe and conclude that, within a species that survives through sexual reproduction, asexuality is a dysfunctional state.

From that perspective, so is homosexuality, which is also not a sexual dysfunction.

It's also an extraordinarily narrow view of how evolution works. Nonreproductive members of several species propogate their genes just fine, and there are environmental and developmental criteria that encourage organisms to be (permanently or temporarily) nonreproductive that are not in any way a dysfunctional state. Asexuality does not prevent reproduction either; it's not too hard to envision a scenario in which it could give a reproductive advantage (although it does require the subjects to be both aware of the effects of sex and desire children).

They're actually starting to suggest that homosexuality is beneficial, in a 'catch-22' sort of way. Historically, gay males (who the study was on, mainly) who don't have children tend to have lots of female relatives that are more fertile than average. I can't quite remember the evolutionary phrase, but it's common among other animals in nature. You-can't-pass-on-your-own-genetics-but-you-can-pass-on-your-close-family's-syndrome, maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

There was an earlier thread that linked to this study, although it just gave the abstract and no commentary, so no one commented on the thread. As for the claim that they "find evidence" suggesting that asexuality isn't a sexual dysfunction, I find this philosophically nonsensical. I explain the reason why is Pathology and Asexual Politics.

As for the comment that asexuality is obviously dysfunctional, first, there is the assumption that if something was "designed" a certain way by evolution, that is how it ought to work for everyone. This itself is very controvercial. (If you're curious why, look up criticisms of Jerome Wakefield's "Harmful Dysfunction" definition of disorder. Wakefield's stuff is also worth reading for the interested.) Second, there is the fact that we really have very little idea how/why what has evolved the way that it has. As a result, you basically just make up a story for why you do or don't think something is "normal." Furthermore, I see no reason why it should be necessary for every member of a population to reproduce. There is also the question of whether reproduction is the main purpose of sexual attraction anyway. (If sex was just for having babies, we should expect that humans would be interested in having it about once every three years.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous reasons why people are asexual. If the reason has to do with psychological trauma and/or physiological disorders, then it's possible an ansexual person is experiencing some sort of imbalance causing the asexual tendencies. If an asexual is experiencing psychological turmoil because of their being asexual, then I would say their asexuality is a disorder than can be treated. Many asexuals suffer from psycholigcal turmoil. They often feel isolated, lonely, and depressed because of their asexuality. If the asexual who is suffering psychologically is able to get to the root of the underlying problem that's causing asexuality, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the asexual person to do so to try and reduce their psychological suffering? Of course they can accept their asexuality and "deal" with it, but why not get to the root of the asexuality if it is in fact caused by psychological trauma and/or a physiological disorder? I don't doubt that there are people are who were born asexual, who weren't traumatized into being asexual and who do not have a physiological disorder. But I also think there are some people who identify as asexual as a cover up of deeper issues that should be addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meeba, unless you are a researcher who has done a number of studies, there's no good reason for you to be giving your opinion as fact. What you claim is not only not proven, it isn't supported by the experience of many AVENites who have posted about their lives. You've done this in several other threads. It's misleading and unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous reasons why people are asexual. If the reason has to do with psychological trauma and/or physiological disorders, then it's possible an ansexual person is experiencing some sort of imbalance causing the asexual tendencies. If an asexual is experiencing psychological turmoil because of their being asexual, then I would say their asexuality is a disorder than can be treated. Many asexuals suffer from psycholigcal turmoil. They often feel isolated, lonely, and depressed because of their asexuality. If the asexual who is suffering psychologically is able to get to the root of the underlying problem that's causing asexuality, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the asexual person to do so to try and reduce their psychological suffering? Of course they can accept their asexuality and "deal" with it, but why not get to the root of the asexuality if it is in fact caused by psychological trauma and/or a physiological disorder? I don't doubt that there are people are who were born asexual, who weren't traumatized into being asexual and who do not have a physiological disorder. But I also think there are some people who identify as asexual as a cover up of deeper issues that should be addressed.

Are you a psychiatrist in need of patients or what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meeba, unless you are a researcher who has done a number of studies, there's no good reason for you to be giving your opinion as fact. What you claim is not only not proven, it isn't supported by the experience of many AVENites who have posted about their lives. You've done this in several other threads. It's misleading and unfair.

Seconded.

In my own estimate, I believe that most people who identify as asexual are indeed asexual; people, who do not experience sexual attraction.

But I guess you, meeba, are still free to believe whatever you want - if I were you though I'd refrain from presenting personal opinions as facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
. . .but there are sounds

Can we please try to stick to discussion of the article brought in by the OP.

Thank you,

World Watch Moderator,

. . .but there are sounds

Link to post
Share on other sites

This study reminded me of the article "Disadvised Research" on Asexual Explorations, in which the author discourages research into the physical arousal of asexual men. These "penile plesythmegraphy" studies have some serious methodological problems, and the fear is that the results would be misinterpreted as invalidating asexuality.

Granted, this study is about the arousal of women, not men. And they interpret the results as validating asexuality, rather than invalidating it.

I'm a little confused, actually. I don't understand what the results are, much less how they lead to the stated conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The photoplethysmoraph studies in women are even more confusing in light of previous experiments which have shown that for women, genital arousal does not always correlate with mental arousal--regardless of sexual orientation. And that for women, genital arousal is more likely to happen whenever any kind of sexual stimuli is presented. As I understand it, genital arousal is supposed to be somewhat more correlated to actual sexual interest in men, although if I understand what Andrew is saying correctly there seem to be some serious issues with the way that penile measurement experiments are being set up. (They're throwing out 38% of their sample sizes?)

It actually looks like what the experimenters are saying here, though, is that the women were pretty much all displaying heightened genital arousal while watching the erotic film, regardless of orientation. Which fits with earlier data about female genital arousal with respect to erotic stimuli. And what they're also saying is that asexual women have all the parts working fine--that is, they're not experiencing any physical trouble becoming aroused. Which would seem to provide evidence against asexuality being a sexual dysfunction per se, because it's an entirely mental issue, not a physical inability to become aroused. Or, in fact, a subjective inability to become aroused, because asexual women didn't vary from nonasexual women there either. (Actually, they're saying that asexual women are more aware of being aroused than nonasexual women, which I find very interesting.)

Basically, as I'm reading the paper it's boiling down to "the parts work fine, and as far as we can tell it's probably not about arousal at all. Which suggests to us that this is probably is about directing arousal, which means this probably isn't a dysfunction because the only thing we can find differentiating these women is the direction."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

My interpretation of the paper is pretty similar to Sciatrix's, although I would highlight (and question) the assumption that if asexuality were simply a lack of interest in sex, it is not a dysfunction, but if it involved inability/difficulty in becoming (physiologically) aroused, then it would be. In our present classifications, both lack of interest in sex (a more psychological thingy) and lack of arousal (a more physiological thingy) are considered dysfunctions (both have the distress requirement, btw.) No justification is given for rejecting lack of interest in sex as being dysfunctional but accepting lack of arousability as being a dysfunction.

The argument fundamentally hinges on this (not to mention the fact that the asexual women did show less arousal, though I don't think it was statistically significant--of course, lack of statistical significance doesn't mean all that much when have a really small sample size.) Yet the assumption does not fit current conceptualization of sexual dysfunction, and no justification whatsoever is given for it.

Also, in my thing on disadvised research, my argument is specific to research on men and doesn't apply to research on women; the difference has to do with differences in how the data is generally handled and interpreted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GreenRemindsMe

There are numerous reasons why people are asexual.

You're right. The genesis of sexual orientation to my knowledge hasn't been precisely determined.

If the reason has to do with psychological trauma and/or physiological disorders, then it's possible an ansexual person is experiencing some sort of imbalance causing the asexual tendencies.

That's not an asexual person.

That's a sexual abuse victim experiencing not an "imbalance", but a sexual disorder.

If an asexual is experiencing psychological turmoil because of their being asexual, then I would say their asexuality is a disorder than can be treated.

Orientations cannot be "treated"- merely fought or accepted.

Many asexuals suffer from psycholigcal turmoil. They often feel isolated, lonely, and depressed because of their asexuality.

So do most others belonging to a non-heterosexual orientation in a hetero-normative culture.

If the asexual who is suffering psychologically is able to get to the root of the underlying problem that's causing asexuality, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the asexual person to do so to try and reduce their psychological suffering?

Again, the "causes" of orientation have not been precisely defined, and is there no definitive evidence that one can be "cured" of an orientation and choose another.

Looks like someone needs to review their definitions and cease playing Amateur Psychiatrist. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I would not be so harsh on Meeba's comment. What Meeba said actually reminds me of a discussion I listended to on a french radio the other day between an AVEN member and a sexologist regarding asexuality. The sexologist did recognised that he used to hastily pathologised asexual people, but was then forced to recognise that some people have always felt that way and are happy because this is what is natural to them. They live very fulfilled lives whereas trying to be sexual, as the AVEN member pointed out from her own experience led to frustration and unhappiness. Asexuality was what was natural to her as opposed to sexuality, end of. But the sexologist argued that this was to be differentiated with people who do not have any sexual desires or are not happy having sex with someone else but then suffer from this situation as a result because they wish it was otherwise. My understanding of the sexologist then (and it's just my understanding...) is that these people would not fall in the category of asexuals but would probably be sexual people who experienced sexual issues with various psycho-social causes.

From my own experience, I had to go through similar journey when exploring whether I was gay/bi. I had to figure out what was the nature of me questioning my sexuality, whether I was genuinely gay or whether this had more to do with an 'upset' heterosexuality considering that I had been in hetero relationships in the past but was not happy there so I had to figure out why and leave no stone unturned in order to figure out who I am.

It can be a long, complex and sometime misleading process with lots of twists and turns and I suppose it may reflect the complexity of human kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...