ForumsWEPRAsexuality (New intro: Page 12)

192 45490
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

Introduction

I was watching something on National Geographic the other day and something about asexuals came up. I was a bit intrigued, but they did not go into as much detail as I wanted. I figured that sense we have a good group of discussioners (just made that word up), then we could all learn something.

What is Asexuality?

Wikipedia says: Asexuality describes individuals who do not experience sexual attraction and is considered by some to be a sexual orientation.[1] Asexuality as a human sexual orientation has only been recognized and defined in a few academic studies since the late 1970s, and a community of self-identified asexuals has only coalesced since the start of the 21st century, aided by the widening popularity of online communities.[1] One commonly cited study placed the incidence rate of asexuality at 1%.[2] Asexuality is not the same as celibacy, which is the deliberate abstention from sexual activity; many asexuals do have sex,[3] and most celibates are not asexual.

How does this fit into the Kinsey Sexuality Scale?

Alfred Kinsey was aware of an asexual element in the population but did little to investigate it. His Kinsey scale of sexual orientation consisted of a single axis lying between heterosexuality and homosexuality with bisexuality in between, and thus left no place for asexuality. In the Kinsey Reports of 1948 and 1953, subjects were scaled from 0 (completely heterosexual) to 6 (completely homosexual), but a separate category of X was created for those with "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions".[4][5] He labeled 1.5% of the adult male population as "X"

Questions

1. Is asexuality even real? I am skeptical. I don't see how one could be asexual given the hormones we all have.

2. Do you think it is purely sexual or does it involve romantic notions?

3. Given that it is real and does exist, could it be a result of a trauma?

4. Would you classify this as a mental disorder given the fact that their body has the right hormones, etc?

  • 192 Replies
Estel
offline
Estel
1,973 posts
Peasant

Hey Flip, asexuality (in this case) is referring to the disability to have sexual atraction. (I'm not to sure if that is exact)

So those antisocial people aren't asexual, they just are too afraid to talk to girls. So what we are talking about is that "unless" that you stated. We are debating on what really is the effect, cause etc.

I am also sure that they would want it fixed, but it isn't as easy as it sounds I am guessing.

Manik668
offline
Manik668
40 posts
Scribe

I actually have several things to say. One thing is that I checked the Oxford Dictionary, and it gave three definitions:

Without sex or sexuality, in particular
Biology: (of reproduction): not involving the fusion of gametes*
Biology: without sex or sexual organs: asexual parasites
Without sexual feelings or associations

The first example or definition in Biology given here does not apply to humans because for a human to reproduce, there must be a fusion of gametes*. The second example or definition in Biology states "without sex or sexual organs, meaning that for this to apply to humans, that human may not have any sex organs and that they can also reproduce by themselves with no external influence, like what we all learned in middle school about cells splitting into two parts and making exact copies of themselves. We as humans cannot do this. The last definition here is the only plausible definition that could apply to humans, and that is just a feeling, as innocent as a six year old holding her dad's hand, because that six year old is holding his hand without feeling any sexual feelings or associations.

In my experience, wikipedia is not always accurate, and in many circumstance, is just a collection of public opinion that is not always correct. Here, I think that Asherlee's wikipedia quote is focusing mainly on the definition that asexuality is "without sexual feeling or associations" and that it is a sexual orientation much like homosexuality.

To answer the questions,

1: Asexuality is real in humans, only if it is defined like the example I gave earlier - "as innocent as a six year old holding her dad's hand, because that six year old is holding his hand without feeling any sexual feelings or associations".

2: I am pretty sure that it does not involve romantic notions and is not sexual, mainly because asexuality as it seems this thread is seeing it as is the absence of sex, and it is likely that most asexual humans call themselves that because they don't want anything to do with sex.

3: It definitely could be the result of trauma, especially if what happened involved an earlier romance and that person from there on doesn't want to have anything to do with sex or sexual feelings because it hurt them so much.

4: It might be a mental disorder, but I think that the most likely reason for it would have to be trauma, seeing as there has to be a major reason for a person to ignore hormones. Don't get me wrong, it could be a mental disorder, i don't know.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Mindful of what I said earlier, I nonetheless feel the burning urge to point out that it's entirely possible for somebody to be entirely insensitive to the hormones/neurotransmitters relevant to sexual attraction or even anything to do with sexual behaviors.

Y'all probably need to remember that while sex may be powerful, relevant and therefore difficult to imagine not having for you, that people who don't have any sexual urges wouldn't necessarily feel the need to 'fix' it. Despite popular belief, it's not like we'd keel over and die or explode or kill ourselves if we didn't have sexual urges. It's not necessarily paramount to physiological function.

There is another form of induced asexuality, and this would be from chemical castration. Some registered sex offenders (those who have performed some kind of sexual criminal act) have either been recommended chemical castration or have even volunteered themselves so that they can be free to function in society without risk of reoffending. One such person, when interviewed, reported that he no longer felt any sexual urges, and was therefore technically asexual in the sense that we are attempting to discuss.

thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

I am 99% sure my sister is asexual. So I'm pretty sure it exists.

Manik668
offline
Manik668
40 posts
Scribe

Wow Strop, castration hadn't occurred to me, and I thought and researched for about an hour. I agree with you on the point that asexual people might not want to "fix" it, I mean we have to put ourselves in their place, "what would we do if we didn't have urges?", and if you think that way, it's perfectly reasonable that asexual people wouldn't want to change.

And about castration, this is a bit off topic, but I think that even criminals should choose if they want to be castrated or not and not forced to be, because forcing a sex offender to be castrated is almost sinking as low as them by not letting them have a right to choose even though it may be for "the good of the people".

garifu
offline
garifu
145 posts
Shepherd

One of the symptoms of major depression is anhedonia, or a lack of desire for pleasure. As defined, this is probably the most common form of psychological asexuality prevelant in our society. And considering the incidence of major depression, I'd say asexuality could be 1% of the population.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

But I think that even criminals should choose if they want to be castrated or not and not forced to be, because forcing a sex offender to be castrated is almost sinking as low as them by not letting them have a right to choose even though it may be for "the good of the people"


This is a difficult statement for me to approach because I happen to agree with it in sentiment, but I also have the following principles:

Legally speaking, people are entitled with rights in order to cohabit in a way that preserves the rights of all. When a person is convicted of a criminal act and sent to prison, some or even all of those rights are revoked. As a criminal, one is presumably proven to be unable (for whatever reason) to respect those rights and liberties of others.

Personally I don't like rights talk, but what it does is demonstrate another dilemma that I have. I appreciate that everybody has their own predilections and their own urges, and arguably these will also apply to those who are predisposed to criminal acts. Insofar as the law presents a uniform set of restrictions upon certain liberties to uphold others, I guess some people are going to feel hard done by because those laws make it much harder for them to express said predilections in any way or form (recent buzzword: pedophilia), but for the sake of cohabitation this is the way things currently stand.

I do believe that in these cases that chemical castration is recommended, though I don't think that the patient is told 'you're going to be chemically castrated', moreso it may be given to them as a recommendation or, I don't know whether this happens, maybe even a condition of release if they are thought to be at too high a risk of reoffending. The alternative I know has been proposes is to 'commit' them, which essentially means (in practice) imprisoning them for the rest of their life, which I think might be even worse.

In general, I believe sex has been blown into a social chimera. People are reacting so violently and vehemently to things they don't have a clue about (so what's new) that unwarranted restrictions are placed on certain groups. Such disenfranchisement only really serves to make whatever problems there are worse, which serves in turn to reinforce the public misconceptions. If we weren't meddling around in such an ineffective manner, we wouldn't have to discuss these things, but then again, what I'm suggesting seems like a bit of a utopian pipedream.

One of the symptoms of major depression is anhedonia, or a lack of desire for pleasure. As defined, this is probably the most common form of psychological asexuality prevelant in our society. And considering the incidence of major depression, I'd say asexuality could be 1% of the population.


Good point- I'm under the impression that this tends to be overlooked. As a side-note, there are other iatrogenic forms of ahedonia, one of them being a fairly underreported side effect of antidepressants (SSRIs).
Wittman
offline
Wittman
318 posts
Nomad

Research exploring asexuality, or even taking asexuality into account, is a relatively recent development in the study of sex. Many of the larger studies in this area are only now being planned and carried out, so the body of work is growing at a rapid pace.
Alfred Kinsey, the father of sexology, was aware of an asexual element in the population but did little to investigate it. His Kinsey scale of sexual orientation consisted of a single axis lying between heterosexuality and homosexuality with bisexuality in between, and thus left no place for asexuality. In the Kinsey Reports of 1948 and 1953, subjects were scaled from "0" (completely heterosexual) to "6" (completely homosexual), but a separate category of "X" was created for those with "no socio-sexual contacts or reactions."
The first explorations of asexuality were based on the presumed existence of an asexual demographic, inferred from a new understanding of human sexual variability brought by researchers such as Kinsey. A 1977 paper entitled ''Asexual and Autoerotic Women: Two Invisible Groups'', by Myra T. Johnson, may provide the first such conjecture. Johnson defines asexuals as those men and women "who, regardless of physical or emotional condition, actual sexual history, and marital status or ideological orientation, seem to ''refer'' not to engage in sexual activity." Johnson reveals no firsthand knowledge of or contact with asexual individuals, but portrays them as invisible, "oppressed by a consensus that they are nonexistent," and left behind by both the sexual revolution and feminist movement.
In a 1980 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Michael D. Storms of the University of Kansas outlined his own reimagining of the Kinsey scale. Like Kinsey, Storms gauged orientation based on fantasizing and eroticism rather than actual sexual activity. Storms, however, placed the tendencies of hetero-eroticism and homo-eroticism on separate axes rather than at two ends of a single scale; this allows for a distinction between bisexuality (exhibiting both hetero- and homo-eroticism in degrees comparable to hetero- or homosexuals, respectively) and asexuality (exhibiting a level of homo-eroticism comparable to a heterosexual, and a level of hetero-eroticism comparable to a homosexual: namely, little to none). Storms conjectured that many researchers following Kinsey's model could be mis-categorizing asexual subjects as bisexual, because both were simply defined by a lack of preference for gender in sexual partners.
The first empirical data about an asexual demographic appeared in 1994, when a research team in the United Kingdom carried out a comprehensive survey of 18,876 British residents, spurred by the need for sexual information in the wake of the AIDS epidemic. The survey included a question on sexual attraction, to which a significant 1% of respondents replied that they had "never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all." This phenomenon was seized upon by the Canadian sexuality researcher Dr. Anthony Bogaert, who explored the asexual demographic in a series of studies. The 1% statistic from the UK survey is the one most frequently quoted as the possible incidence of asexuality in the general population, though it should be considered very tentative. Assuming this statistic holds true, the world population of asexual people would stand at over 60 million.
The Kinsey Institute sponsored another small survey on the topic in 2007, which found that self-identified asexuals "reported significantly less desire for sex with a partner, lower sexual arousability, and lower sexual excitation but did not differ consistently from non-asexuals in their sexual inhibition scores or their desire to masturbate."
Though comparisons with non-human sexuality are problematic, a series of studies done on ram mating preferences at the United States Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho starting in 2001 found that about 2% to 3% of the animals being studied had no apparent interest in mating with either sex; the researchers classified these animals as asexual, but found them to be otherwise healthy with no recorded differences in hormone levels.

I hope this answers your questions.

Skyla
offline
Skyla
291 posts
Peasant

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wittman! I'm sure that would help a lot of people. Honestly though, awesome copy-paste skills!

I like the final touch, as well: 'I hope this answers your questions'

Perfect.

Wittman
offline
Wittman
318 posts
Nomad

I didnt copy and paste all of it. I only copied and patse the things I didnt know it my speech, it is all real, only the big detailed things were copied and paste.

Manik668
offline
Manik668
40 posts
Scribe

Thanks Wittman, even if you did copy and paste, it still is very informative and it does answer most of my questions, even though my interpretation of this whole topic is kind of different.

Hippyonfire
offline
Hippyonfire
34 posts
Nomad

go and get fookin laid

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Okay, first thing: if you're copy and pasting anything at all, it's appropriate to cite where you copied from. It's a very important habit to form, because people need to be able to judge how valid the information is for themselves.

Storms conjectured that many researchers following Kinsey's model could be mis-categorizing asexual subjects as bisexual, because both were simply defined by a lack of preference for gender in sexual partners.


This is particularly interesting as in my discussions with friends and classmates, I've observed the same thing- there is concern among some that the 'don't have sexual attraction' group is being overlooked.

More importantly, this could possibly be an example of where sexual rhetoric is overly compartmentalised: many people find it difficult to express sexual desire in and of itself because it is merely incidental to other forms of attraction i.e. emotional intimacy. This is on average more an issue with women, so it seems, although I believe it's a significant issue whatever gender you happen to be.

@ Manik668:

What interpretation might you be talking about here?
Ricador
offline
Ricador
3,722 posts
Shepherd

I don't think that this is real. Everyone has to have sexual intrigue. It is something that we were created with. If only a few people ave ever been reported to have it, then i am skeptical. Or could it be some form of mutation? But i would not classify it as a mental disorder because as far as your post says, it does not affect your insanity level or anything like that at all. It does not seem like your mental health would be affected by it at all.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

@ Ricador:

First, what do you mean by "real" there?

Is "heterosexuality" real?

---

Main reason I'm back here is to point out something else:

The link to the passage above.

What's particularly worrying about this one is this big chunk of an omission that actually makes one of the sentences incorrect, which is one of the nasty side effects of uncritical plagiarism:

"The first study that gave information data about asexuals was published in 1983 by Paula Nurius, concerning the relationship between sexual orientation and mental health. Unlike previous studies on the subject, she used a two-dimensional model for sexual orientation. 689 subjects-most of whom were students at various universities in the United States taking psychology or sociology classes--were given several surveys, including four clinical well-being scales and a survey asking how frequently they engaged in various sexual activites and how often they would like to engage in those activities. Based on the results, respondents were given a score ranging from 0-100 for hetero-eroticism and for homo-eroticism. Respondents who scored lower than 10 on both were labeled "asexual." This consisted of 5% of males and 10% of females. Results showed that asexuals were more likely to have low self-esteem and more likely to be depressed than other sexual orientations. 25.88% of heterosexuals, 26.54% bisexuals (called "ambisexuals&quot, homosexual=29.88%, and 33.57% of asexuals were reported to have problems with self-esteem. A similar trend existed for depression. Nurius did not belive that firm conclusions can be drawn from this for a variety of reasons. Also, asexuals reported much lower frequency and desired frequency of a variety of sexual activites including having multiple partners, anal sexual activities, having sexual encounters in a variety of locations, and autoerotic activities.*

Further empirical data..."

* Nurius, Paula "Mental Health Implications of Sexual Orientation" The Journal of Sex Research 19 (2) pp.119-136

This paragraph needs to replace: "The first empirical data about" at the beginning of para. 5. You'll note that this changes the meaning of the sentence- from "Further empirical data" to "The first empirical data", which is misleading.

I know I'm being very rigorous but this is because it's actually important in multiple senses. As you can see, in committing a wrong, Wittman managed to also turn fact into fiction, a double-whammy.

Anyhow, what's done is done, and I'm only using this as an example, not to single people out. So long as I don't see things like this again, I won't have to point out it, right? Anybody else who thinks they can get away with it- forget it: I've got a background in academic research, I speed-read and I probably know how to use Google better than you do.

Showing 16-30 of 192