Poll: Question about asexuality.
- Thread starter GoaThief
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Seconded.thylasos said:
Seriously, WTF?
...
The idea is just bizarre...is this a necrobump from the 50s or something?
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,172
- 150
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
How could an asexual (I'm not one personally) be diagnosed exactly? If they're male, show them erotic pictures of various males and females and see if they get "excited"? Maybe I just have relatively strong sexual attractions but I'd think someone would be able to tell if they couldn't get off to anyone or anything.
In my experience, doctors tend to do only the diagnosing bit on their own. If you want to know something else, you'll have to ask them. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not going to tell my doctor all about my romantic life[footnote]or lack thereof[/footnote] for the sole reason of inquring about my sexuality[footnote]see [1][/footnote].GoaThief said:
You just know that's going to end up on the bill somehow.
Now, By no means is this the case for every, or even most asexuals but I do have some lady hormone stuff. My doctor described it more or less as that its like I'm three months pregnant and in menopause at the same time. (No, I'm not actually preggers.)
For a while, I thought that getting treatment might change things for me. That if my hormone hypersensitivity or whatever was straightened out, then I might not really be asexual! I might be straight, and that everything I'm (not) feeling wasn't real.
So, I present the question to AVEN. What they told me is that, yes, sexuality is a fluid thing, and just because I could, some day in the future, get a sex drive, doesn't mean that what I am, and what I've always been isn't real.
Asexuality is not the same as having a suppressed libido- even if what makes you asexual is beyond a normal and healthy state, its an identification with the fact that you're not straight, and you're not gay, pansexual or whatever else is out there that's a person and is being turned on by something.
And I only have to voice it because everyone makes such a big goddamned deal about clubs for people who want to screw "X" thing that you can't just not be something, and I hate people acting like I'm not a whole person because I don't want to fuck.
For a while, I thought that getting treatment might change things for me. That if my hormone hypersensitivity or whatever was straightened out, then I might not really be asexual! I might be straight, and that everything I'm (not) feeling wasn't real.
So, I present the question to AVEN. What they told me is that, yes, sexuality is a fluid thing, and just because I could, some day in the future, get a sex drive, doesn't mean that what I am, and what I've always been isn't real.
Asexuality is not the same as having a suppressed libido- even if what makes you asexual is beyond a normal and healthy state, its an identification with the fact that you're not straight, and you're not gay, pansexual or whatever else is out there that's a person and is being turned on by something.
And I only have to voice it because everyone makes such a big goddamned deal about clubs for people who want to screw "X" thing that you can't just not be something, and I hate people acting like I'm not a whole person because I don't want to fuck.
Well the problem with the distinction is that you're using the word "asexual" to describe three unique situations (well, at least three, anyway).
-Some people make a conscious decision to forgo "rumptie-too" as "I Can Help You" hilariously referred to it. The desire may be there, but either due to social constraints, other focuses in life, or just general ugliness (hey, it happens) they have made the decision not to attempt to have a sexual aspect of their day-to-day business.
-Some people just genuinely have no desire. I don't really care about race cars. Some people love them, and I'm fine with that, but they've no bearing on my life whatsoever. The social (and let's face it biological) norm is generally to involve/entangle yourself with someone. To KNOW them, Biblically and all that, but some people just don't dig that vibe.
-And the third group that comes to mind are people who have the emotional desire, but something is perhaps medically wrong with them so that their bodies do not react as they are biologically supposed to when they should be interested in someone. You ever notice how everyone you have ever been attracted to SMELLS incredible? That's not a coincidence, but some people have this reaction somehow chemically blocked, and they may need the help of a medical professional to solve the problem.
Society has an unwritten list of rules that everyone seems to have an UNDERSTANDING of, and to live your life outside those guidelines is abnormal, but that's such a strange idea to me. I have dated three women in my life, and each one was staggeringly different from the other two, not just in terms of personalities (although they were that. Keep trying til I find the right one, right? Blargh), but also in the details. What they were interested (or not interested) in doing when it was naked time ran a remarkable gamut, and I am not surprised or put off at all to learn that there are people who just have NO interest.
I feel very bad for people in the third category, though. I could never be asexual myself... I just... well I just love women too goddamned much. MAN they're awesome.
-Some people make a conscious decision to forgo "rumptie-too" as "I Can Help You" hilariously referred to it. The desire may be there, but either due to social constraints, other focuses in life, or just general ugliness (hey, it happens) they have made the decision not to attempt to have a sexual aspect of their day-to-day business.
-Some people just genuinely have no desire. I don't really care about race cars. Some people love them, and I'm fine with that, but they've no bearing on my life whatsoever. The social (and let's face it biological) norm is generally to involve/entangle yourself with someone. To KNOW them, Biblically and all that, but some people just don't dig that vibe.
-And the third group that comes to mind are people who have the emotional desire, but something is perhaps medically wrong with them so that their bodies do not react as they are biologically supposed to when they should be interested in someone. You ever notice how everyone you have ever been attracted to SMELLS incredible? That's not a coincidence, but some people have this reaction somehow chemically blocked, and they may need the help of a medical professional to solve the problem.
Society has an unwritten list of rules that everyone seems to have an UNDERSTANDING of, and to live your life outside those guidelines is abnormal, but that's such a strange idea to me. I have dated three women in my life, and each one was staggeringly different from the other two, not just in terms of personalities (although they were that. Keep trying til I find the right one, right? Blargh), but also in the details. What they were interested (or not interested) in doing when it was naked time ran a remarkable gamut, and I am not surprised or put off at all to learn that there are people who just have NO interest.
I feel very bad for people in the third category, though. I could never be asexual myself... I just... well I just love women too goddamned much. MAN they're awesome.
I think it would be fair to say they are in the first category, yes. People who make a conscious decision not to be sexual people. It's certainly not the same as the second category, or indeed what you would likely imagine when you hear the word "asexual." I've never been (or met) a monk or a nun, but they seem to be doing all right for themselves without romance, sex, or the desires thereof in their lives.
Again, as it was a conscious decision at one point, it's not really the same as a genuine lack of interest or desire, but the end result is effectively congruent.
EDIT: Although, upon rereading my post, I forgot to make my actual point: the fact that the word means and can mean so many different states of being makes it somewhat useless as a descriptor, at least medically. The original poll asked whether a professional had ever told a person they were/were not asexual, and by its nature it's not really a medical (or psychological) distinction, except in the last case I mention. It would be like diagnosing someone a "chocoholic." The word doesn't really have a concrete medical meaning, and it would only be relevant if the person in question chose to label themselves as such, if they chose to label themselves as any except "human."
That's a personal choice, though. I've got plenty of labels for myself! "Pretentious jerk-off" is my favorite.
Again, as it was a conscious decision at one point, it's not really the same as a genuine lack of interest or desire, but the end result is effectively congruent.
EDIT: Although, upon rereading my post, I forgot to make my actual point: the fact that the word means and can mean so many different states of being makes it somewhat useless as a descriptor, at least medically. The original poll asked whether a professional had ever told a person they were/were not asexual, and by its nature it's not really a medical (or psychological) distinction, except in the last case I mention. It would be like diagnosing someone a "chocoholic." The word doesn't really have a concrete medical meaning, and it would only be relevant if the person in question chose to label themselves as such, if they chose to label themselves as any except "human."
That's a personal choice, though. I've got plenty of labels for myself! "Pretentious jerk-off" is my favorite.
