Asexuals and low sex drives

[Bocaj2000]

I've been talking to my friends about asexuality, which is something neither of us understand, and the guess we came up with is that an asexual is simply someone with a low sex drive.

First question: Is that true?
Second question, what is the opposite of an asexual?
Third question, why is 'asexual' its own orientation?
Last question, can the opposite be it's own orientation as well? If not, why not?

EDIT:
Followup question: How is an asexual's romantic relationship different from platonic companionship?

 

[JoJo]

1) From what I gather, yes, asexuality is the complete absence of a sex drive, at-least one directed at other people.

2) The opposite would either be a bisexual or a hypersexual, depending on whether you're looking at orientation or strength of sex drive.

3) A true asexual is not attracted to either males or females, so logically they can't be gay, straight or bi right?

4) I wouldn't count hypersexuality as an orientation in itself, since hypersexuals can be still prefer only one gender, or both. It's an additional thing on top of a regular sexuality, unlike asexuality.

For the record, I'm not asexual but one of my close friends is.

 

[Colour Scientist]

An asexual is someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction or desire. This is not to be confused with someone who just chooses not to have sex or someone who has a very low sex drive.

The opposite of someone who doesn't experience sexual desire is someone who does so that could be someone of pretty much any other sexual orientation.

Asexuality is considered an orientation as I suppose it indicates a lack of sexual desire for both men and women.

 

[Asita]

I think the best the best summation I've seen for it essentially boiled it down to "not interested", or to put it more in the context of orientation, it could perhaps best be expressed by the following exchange: "Are you attracted to men, or are you attracted to women?" "In all honesty, neither." To my understanding, it's not so much the lack of sex drive as it is a lack of sexual attraction.

As to what the opposite of asexuality is...well, given that the "a-" prefix denotes a lack of the core word, pretty much any other sexuality could qualify, though pansexuality is arguably the best fit.

 

[sky14kemea]

An asexual is someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction or desire. This is not to be confused with someone who just chooses not to have sex or someone who has a very low sex drive.

Essentially this.

It means you're not sexually attracted to anyone. It does not mean there's a lack of sex drive.

Some asexuals have a high sex drive, they just prefer not to do it with anyone because they're not attracted to them.


The opposite to Asexual would probably be Pansexual. Which means you have the chance of being sexually attracted to anyone, no matter the gender.

(Note: This does not mean you are attracted to everyone. That would be absurd).

Note: I am Asexual, but I can't speak for all asexuals here. It varies from person to person like everything else.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I've been talking to my friends about asexuality, which is something neither of us understand, and the guess we came up with is that an asexual is simply someone with a low sex drive.

First question: Is that true?

Yes, low sex drive or none at all.

Second question, what is the opposite of an asexual?

Someone with actual sex drive.

Third question, why is 'asexual' its own orientation?

It's not, it's lack of orientation.

Last question, can the opposite it's own orientation as well? If not, why not?

I don't understand this question, it wasn't formulated properly.

 

[TakerFoxx]

I've heard various definitions, with some people saying it means a lack of or having a very low sex drive, having a sex drive but not having an attraction toward any gender, or a combination of the two. So like most things relating to sex, the term tends to be fluid I guess (heh).

Personally, I have to admit that I do find the idea of having no sex drive to be kind of appealing. My sex drive is fairly active and I'm pretty much straight, but due to various reasons I have a complete lack of interest in ever actually having sex or getting into a relationship (so, aromantic?). So having no sex drive at all sounds like a real time saver.

 

[stroopwafel]

No, I don't believe 'asexuality' is a thing unless there is a clear neurological, endocrinological or cardiovascular cause. Now espescially in young people this seems very unlikely.

Now, the mind is a powerful thing and people can 'pretend' to be(or not be) anything, but thinking so doesn't necessarily make it so. Some people go through great lengths to avoid the pain of rejection or the stress and uncertainty of emotionally investing in another person. Suppressing desire might be an easy cop out but I think its a choice most will regret later on. You're only young for a short time. Soon enough you'll be old, bald and ugly.

I don't know but I think not just sex but also physical intimacy and affection are just essential for people. The degree of which ofcourse differs from person to person but I don't think there is anyone who can live entirely without unless making some serious concessions to their emotional well-being. As such I think there's a serious amount of self-deceit in 'asexuality'.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

No, I don't believe 'asexuality' is a thing unless there is a clear neurological, endocrinological or cardiovascular cause. Now espescially in young people this seems very unlikely.

Now, the mind is a powerful thing and people can 'pretend' to be(or not be) anything, but thinking so doesn't necessarily make it so. Some people go through great lengths to avoid the pain of rejection or the stress and uncertainty of emotionally investing in another person. Suppressing desire might be an easy cop out but I think its a choice most will regret later on. You're only young for a short time. Soon enough you'll be old, bald and ugly.

I don't know but I think not just sex but also physical intimacy and affection are just essential for people. The degree of which ofcourse differs from person to person but I don't think there is anyone who can live entirely without unless making some serious concessions to their emotional well-being. As such I think there's a serious amount of self-deceit in 'asexuality'.

Sorry not sorry, but my lack of sexual attraction towards people ain't due to an illness or medical condition. And trust me, none of the psychologists/therapists/medical people who checked on me have said I have a mental/health issue. So deal with the fact that in the 7 billion people on the planet, sexual attraction is not something everyone has. Unless you also view everyone not heterosexual as having a mental/health complication, but I don't think so.

In regards to OP: I kinda feel you're confusing sexual attraction to sexual libido. Best to see attraction as "Do I want to have sex with this person?" with libido as "Do I want to have sex?" Otherwise people who are hetero/homo/bi-sexual who have low libido are asexual under your definition, even though they in a committed relationship and defined as heterosexual/homosexual/etc.

There's a bunch of asexuals who don't have a libido, but there's a bunch who do and are in relationships. The only difference is that the relationship is set up not under the pretense that physical attraction brought the couple together, but mental/emotional attraction.

 

[Drummodino]

These threads scare me, there are always some people who get seriously angry over this topic. They tend to be on the asexuality doesn't exist side for some reason...

OT: Yes asexuality is a thing. Some people just aren't attracted to others, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The term "sex drive" is kind of misleading, because unlike most animals adult humans require both cognitive and physical stimulation in order to become sexually aroused. We also experience a great deal more pleasure from sexual encounters when compared to other animals, partly I suspect because we have far more conscious control over our sexual response. In short, our desire for sex is preconditioned by our bodies but it is not caused by our bodies, it is not an instinctive response but something we learn through the experience of our bodies. That's an important distinction.

When we use the term "sex drive" to describe humans what we're referring to is a desire for some form of sexual pleasure. That may be the simple physical pleasure of the act, it may be a feeling of companionship or intimacy, it may be the thrill of being in a position of power over somebody. Whatever it is that causes people to actively seek out sexual pleasure, or even to masturbate.

An asexual person does not necessarily lack a sex drive in this sense. They may, as may all human beings at various points in their lives, but what they lack is a sexual attraction to other human beings. It falls into the same spectrum as other forms of sexual preference, in that it is about who you find attractive, not how much sex you want to have. Many asexuals do masturbate, for example, and some even have sex and derive pleasure from it, they just do so in much the same way that people who self-identify as homosexual or heterosexual may sleep with people of the "wrong" gender due to boredom, convenience, curiosity, a lack of available partners or whatever other reason you care to name.

Low sex drive, or hyposexuality, is a completely separate thing. Hyposexuals may still be very attracted to people, but for whatever reason they do not want to have or cannot have sex or derive sexual pleasure. This may be due to hormone changes, psychological issues, medication, physical injury, the effects of ageing or just not being in the mood. Hyposexuality is a relatively common experience, although in most people it is usually temporary.

There may be a certain degree of crossover, in that asexuals may never become interested in sex because they lack the motivation of having a clear object to be attracted to, and that's fine. There are many sources of pleasure in life besides sexual pleasure, and there's no evidence to suggest that sexual pleasure is really any kind of "need" provided a person can find other ways to connect with people and develop meaningful relationships.

 

[Armadox]

libido =/= sexuality. Asexuality is simply an extreme on the sexual scale, and is a feeling of personal non-desire for physical comfort by self and/or others. Asexuality comes in varying flavors, either a disinterest in sex, gender, or personal physical indulgence, up to a lack of self awareness or even a complete aversion to being in close physical proximity. It's not that you don't want sex, it's that sex isn't really a concept to those who have this. That being said, the world tends to be weird to those who have asexuality, as some things don't hold meaning to them ( sexualized ads for one thing...)

That is not the same as simply having no libido, or physical needs. I am a frankenstein of a man, due to massive amounts of trauma, nerve damage, and parts replacement I don't have any sensation in my skin. I have a sexuality, and a desire for such things, but my libido isn't there, because my body just doesn't always go through the proper run down needed to make ends meet. I've found electricity helps a lot, as well as visualization. I have a sexuality, but no libido.

I have a friend who has a chemical imbalance that has caused her to not feel any desire for sex at all. She has both sexual and gender awareness, but can't seem to be arsed to want sex with another. She has no physical needs, but does have a libido and will occasionally connect with it. Her disinterest in others doesn't change the fact that she knows what she wants, even if it's not another physical person.

There is a bloody rainbow of needs, desires, sexuality, gender identity, complex physical and emotional spectrum, etc. It's good to keep an open mind about these things, as you're never completely sure what makes them tick.

 

[CrystalShadow]

tricky question. I considered myself asexual for a while, but that's misleading, and it depends on how you define 'asexual'

To be fair, there's two issues. And I come up against both at times.
But since neither has been stable in my life, I cannot claim to be asexual in the way people claim to have stable sexual orientations that do not change.

So let's untangle the mess. When not ignoring sex altogether, I usually claim to be bisexual. Which is pretty easy to explain, in that I'm attracted to both men and women.
However, the pitfall there is I am not attracted to many of them. There's only the odd rare person I've ever really found attractive. The vast majority are kind of 'meh'. (and what is conventionally considered really attractive often does nothing for me).

Then there's sex. I had a sex drive. Once. Like, every day I'd feel compelled to do something about it, but... That pretty much vanished. (which I find to be quite a relief, but that's a different issue). Now, I'd be lucky to have any sexual desire more than about once a month. And even when I do I just get bored of it within seconds, rather than feeling inclined to continue. On top of that, people have tried their best to get me excited enough to go along with their... Stuff, and it just... Doesn't seem to work at all. I get bored, and can't be bothered with it.

So... That one covers lack of sex drive I guess...
The thing is, lack of interest in sex doesn't seem to equate to lack of interest in intimacy of some form. Just, the actual physical sexual act bores me to the point that I just can't find any desire to do it beyond just the mere thought of doing it for the sake of keeping a potential partner happy. (not that I have one)

Now... Does any of that make me asexual? or not? I really don't know. You kind of have to establish a definition of what a word actually means before you can say who (if anyone) it applies to.

I know I have no problem with having no sex drive. If anything, given I have had one in the past, it's actually a relief to not have one. So pointless and distracting. Complete waste of energy... XD

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I think asexual is someone who doesn't get attracted to anyone/anything and doesn't have sex. Heterosexual would be opposite sex, Homosexual is same sex, Bisexual is both, and Asexual is neither.

There are people who try to say it's oh so complex and special and requires a big-arse explanation and that it varies and all that jazz (especially on tumblr). Thing is, it's not. It's just a sexual orientation, plain and simple.

Edit: Or as Johnny said, it's not an orientation. Just like atheism is not a religion.

 

[Pyrian]

Now... Does any of that make me asexual? or not? I really don't know. You kind of have to establish a definition of what a word actually means before you can say who (if anyone) it applies to.

And then if you do set a definition, people get offended because they are or are not included. Or you just let people call themselves whatever the heck they want and accept that it all doesn't really mean much.

In truth, human sexuality is really quite varied, and the broad categories commonly used are not adequate in all cases.

 

[AuronFtw]

These threads scare me, there are always some people who get seriously angry over this topic. They tend to be on the asexuality doesn't exist side for some reason...

OT: Yes asexuality is a thing. Some people just aren't attracted to others, nothing wrong with that.

Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, yes, everything is wrong with that. It's "not natural." Not a bible-thumping "hurr durr you have to be straight" natural, I mean it runs counter to everything our bodies are built for. If you look at any species at surface level, all they exist to do is continue existing. Any individual of a species will invariably die, but what they try so hard to do from the minute they're born is stay alive and reproduce. Animals of all kinds, including us humans, do this.

Our (humanity's) sex drive is incredibly overpowering - it beats back logic and reason on a regular basis, and leads people to do incredibly stupid things in the name of sex. It's been that way since before recorded history, and it has to to entice us to breed and continue "living" as a species. A lack of this sex drive *is* a problem - it means something is not functioning properly. Does it mean that person has to be a social outcast, forced to live hated and alone? No, obviously not (in fact, that's one of the unique aspects of asexuality; unlike other conditions related to sexuality, it doesn't come with inherent social distress). But something is most definitely wrong with their bodies. Hormonal imbalance, some kind of specific damage to various organs/parts of the brain, psychological trauma, whatever the cause may be, the rarity and how strongly it runs counter to our body's primary biological purpose kinda hints that everything isn't 100% peachy when such a thing arises.

Obviously it's not "morally wrong" or reprehensible or whatnot, this isn't some religious crusade. I'm just pointing out that given our body's heavy focus on reproduction, the complete lack of attraction or sex drive is kinda out of place. We don't even know why it happens, yet, since it's a very recent field of study. Should be interesting to continue learning more!

 

[Pyrian]

...wrong... It's "not natural."

Obviously it's not "morally wrong" or reprehensible or whatnot, this isn't some religious crusade.

Nothing you wrote requires nor even justifies the use of the words "wrong" or "unnatural". Using them in this context is inherently inflammatory and serves no purpose except to denigrate.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Now... Does any of that make me asexual? or not? I really don't know. You kind of have to establish a definition of what a word actually means before you can say who (if anyone) it applies to.

And then if you do set a definition, people get offended because they are or are not included. Or you just let people call themselves whatever the heck they want and accept that it all doesn't really mean much.

In truth, human sexuality is really quite varied, and the broad categories commonly used are not adequate in all cases.

Quite true of course. As soon as you start trying to make rigid definitions for something like this, you get a lot of problems.

These threads scare me, there are always some people who get seriously angry over this topic. They tend to be on the asexuality doesn't exist side for some reason...

OT: Yes asexuality is a thing. Some people just aren't attracted to others, nothing wrong with that.

Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, yes, everything is wrong with that. It's "not natural." Not a bible-thumping "hurr durr you have to be straight" natural, I mean it runs counter to everything our bodies are built for. If you look at any species at surface level, all they exist to do is continue existing. Any individual of a species will invariably die, but what they try so hard to do from the minute they're born is stay alive and reproduce. Animals of all kinds, including us humans, do this.

While most of what you are saying is quite true, when you argue from biology it's worth noting that biology is VERY messy. Lots of things go 'wrong' some things have detrimental effects long term for a species (even if they seem OK in the short term), individuals can often have traits detrimental either to their own survival, or their ability to pass on their genes.
This happens all the time, because the recombination of genes is semi-random.
The existence of 'unfit' individuals is a side effect of how evolution works.
Because it basically takes a known starting point, creates as many recombinations of it as possible, and sees what sticks.
Yet, this by definition means you will sometimes get individuals with traits detrimental to long-term survival of their gene line. There's nothing unnatural about it. It's just what happens.


Being fit or not in an evolutionary sense is irrelevant. Both the 'good' and 'bad' traits are completely 'natural', because that's how it works! It's just that long-term, any traits detrimental to either immediate survival, or long-term reproductive success should get weeded out. (But may in turn be replaced by newer kinds of detrimental traits.)

Being bad at reproducing isn't in any way 'unnatural'. That is to misunderstand how evolution functions. It DOES mean that you are arguably a 'failure' at the only real goal life seems to have, but Being a 'failure' is something quite different from being 'unnatural'.

You're confusing 'not as suitable for the primary purpose of life' with 'unnatural' (which actually means something which can only exist due to being messed with, or which shouldn't arise under normal circumstances).

Asexuality, homosexuality, intersex conditions, damaged reproductive systems, etc... None of these are 'unnatural' all of them can and do arise just through the normal everyday processes of reproduction and evolution.
What they ARE however is 'evolutionarily unfit', meaning their prevalence should decrease over time, all things considered. (Unless they are a side effect of something else which is beneficial to the survival of the species in some way, or perhaps an unavoidable consequence the inherent imperfection of another process. Eg. The complexity of creating sexually dimorphic traits from a single set of genes may inherently carry the risk of intersex conditions developing just because of how complex it is.)

Anyway... Whatever. XD