Advertisements

Clarissa's Blog

An academic's opinions on feminism, politics, literature, philosophy, teaching, academia, and a lot more.

>Asexuality

>A recent post at Feministing illustrates the point I was trying to make about tolerance that sometimes turns into a parody of itself.

The post responds to a message from somebody who feels asexual and finds anybody’s touch “absolutely repulsive. The thought of sex makes me gag a bit.” The response that the author of the message gets to her post takes the idea of political correctnes to the extreme that is even a little scary. The main idea of the response is “Asexual people of the world, unite!” Don’t worry about beinng asexual, it says. You can always get together with other asexual people, date them, and form yet another neat identity group.

This attitude does not come exclusively out of the desire to show the world how tolerant and accepting one is. It is also the result of a deeply Puritanical view of sex, which refuses to see human sexuality on terms of a physiological process. If anybody found the idea of eating or sleeping (also physiological processes) “absolutely repulsive”, we wouldn’t be as likely to dismiss this problem with a lot of well-meaning but ultimately empty words. Nobody would (at least for now, I think) suggest to form an identity group around this problem.

Another problem that the response to this post brings to light, is the deep-seated fear that many Americans feel towards psychology as a field of knowledge. While several people suggested that the author of the post look for hormonal causes of her asexuality, nobody mentioned that it might be helpful for her to search for psychological causes.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

103 thoughts on “>Asexuality

Comment navigation

  1. >This is a very intollerant post. We do exist! Please go to http://www.asexuality.org . Statistics tell we are less than 1% of humanity, but that is still a lot. Asexuals are divided into heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic and aromantic. Also some asexuals feel a need for masturbation (called asexuals with sex drive) while others don't (asexuals without drive). Some can even experience sexual attraction but only on themselves (autoerotic), others experience attraction on anime/characters, others even write sex stories but are not attracted by real people even when in love. Some asexuals even have/have had problems with porn addiction or other addictions.While it's true that many asexuals have strong psychological issues with sexuality and sometimes intimacy in general even among friends, it's also true that there are many sexuals who have the same problems and there are many asexuals who don't have those problems. It's very complicated, anyway we exist and if you check on the forum you'll find out we have online and real life meetups and dating sites too. We need the internet to find a partner because we are so few and far between that for us long distance relationships are normal, anyway knowing that sex is not expected when we finally meet is a big relif and makes long distance relatioships easier than for sexuals.I hope to have been informative enough… Best regards

    Like

  2. >Seriously? Why is this absolute ignorance of asexuality and understanding of issues for sexual minorities coming up on a *feminist* blogroll?What next? Gay men should consider the psychological and physiological causes of finding the idea of cunnilingus absolutely repulsive (because after all, we do live in a society that tells us that vaginas are yucky and smelly)? And lesbians must be investigated biologically because it's not understandable because doesn't evolution cause all women to crave penises so they can reproduce?Yes, you sound absolutely ever bit as ignorant and intolerant as people say those things about gay and lesbian people.

    Like

  3. >Dear Ivan, your post is indeed very informative, thank you for taking the trouble to share the informationn. I have never put the existence of your group in question and from what you say I see that there is very little if any disagreement between what you and I have to say on the subject. Good luck with everything!

    Like

  4. >Dear Anonymous! I find the rhetorical device you employ in your argument to be non-conducive to a real discussion on the subject. You ascribe to me some homophobic ideas that I never dreamed of expressing and then argue with them and condemn me for them. What next? You will accuse me of antisemitism or racism (equally baselessly)?The bit about yucky vaginas really confused me. Which society promotes this vision of vaginas? The societies where I have lived never told me anything remotely similar about the female vagina.

    Like

  5. >I also invite everybody who repeats the word "intolerant" like some mantra to read my recent post on excessive tolerance. There, I talk about how the desire to be tolerant at all cost castrates our capacity to generate new ideas and participate in debates on important subject. This discussion is contained in one of my posts on Zizek.

    Like

  6. >I read the original post as well as all of the comments including yours and the responses to your comments.Most people weren't being excessively accepting, in fact the overwhelming number of responses consisted of something like — being sexual is normal, a low sex drive is abnormal you should get your hormones checked and/or see a therapist. The original person asking the question clarified that she had her hormones checked everything is fine. She just finds sex a huge turn off.The idea of most of the responses seemed to be being sexual is what the majority of people are, which means there's something wrong with being asexual.I don't think the comparison of being gay or lesbian is that far fetched. I have to ask this — If the question had been along the lines of "I think I may be a lesbian, I find the idea of sex with men repulsive, but I've had crushes on boys in the past. And now I'm attracted to women. Could I be a lesbian or maybe bisexual?"Would you still say there needs to be physical tests as well as seeing a therapist?After all most people are heterosexual and being homosexual (or bisexual) is considered other. It's still physiological.If you wouldn't give the same advice why not? Honestly there are such variations in sexuality to begin with why is the idea of someone not wanting to have sex such a hard one to grasp?

    Like

  7. >I have to make one more comment about the "Puritanical" view of sex. As if Puritans were against sex.They were against sex outside of marriage and weren't tolerant of homoesexuality but they had a very pro sex attitude. The Puritans believed sex was important and necessary to a marriage and that two people should have passion and desire, etc/. Even some of their religious writings have a passionate tone.I don't claim to be an expert on Puritans but if you read a few books about them you will find out all sorts of things. Like there were a few women who managed to get their marriages severed when their husbands were no longer able to perform sexually.They liked beer as well.

    Like

  8. >The common usage of the word puritanical today means sexually repressive, which is exactly what American society is. The same happens with the word Victorian, irrespective of how the actual Victorians felt about sex. As to you parallel with homosexuality, I still fail to see how it applies. As I said, sexuality is a physiological process, like sleeping or eating. depriving yourself of sleep will be detrimental to your health. This is my firm belief and I have a right to it. Since gay and lesbian people do not deprive themselves of sex, there is no reason to believe that they might suffer detrimental effects of sexual deprivation.I find that trying to bring homosexuality into the discussion of sexless lives is nothing but a tactic aimed at diverting the conversation from the actual topic.

    Like

  9. >Why do you guys keep equating homosexuality and asexuality? These are entirely different things. I find this disturbing.

    Like

  10. >Comparing asexuality and homosexuality isn't the best comparasion but I don't think comparing asexuality to extreme sleep deprivation or eating disorders is better.According to the asexual website mentioned above there are people who have romantic feelings to those of the same sex but still don't have a desire to have sex.Plus what kind of detrimental effects do you think celibacy causes? That's not clear to me at all. I know the damage sleep deprivation and starvation can cause but what possible physical damage can a lack of sex cause?

    Like

  11. >Everybody is forgetting that this whole discussion started with a letter somebody wrote to ask for help with her asexuality. This is not somebody who is happy and content with what's happening. In my opinion, before you undergo the extremely invasive hormonal therapy, it definitely makes sense to see a psychologist. Notice how I don't go to the websites of asexual people and give them this advice. I only offer it to someone who said she wanted help and advice on this matter. As for health benefits of sex, I know for an absolute fact that it lowers blood pressure, helps with headaches and even removes severe tooth pain. I'm not a doctor, so I only mention what I know personally. But there are tons of medical info on the subject on the internet. Besides all this, sex is one of the best experiences available to human beings. It is simply an amazing thing. But the repressive patriarchal society doesn't want us to know that.

    Like

  12. >I also want to add that for me this is not about asexual people and the way they live their lives. I'm not bothered by them but rather by what I consider to be an alarming trend within the feminist community, which often perpetuates patriarchal and sexually repressive view of female sexuality. There are so many sources that tell women that sex is wrong and dirty. I don't think that the feminist community needs to add to that.

    Like

  13. >It's true that the woman writing in about her asexuality wasn't overly happy about being asexual, but I think that this is because we live in a society sorely conflicted about sex and part of that is the belief that sex is essential to being happy and that everyone needs to be interested in sex. (Even if not everyone thinks this, there are a lot who do. It would be naive to think you're the only person with the opinion you've expressed.) In this context, asexuals can often feel strange, alone, alienated and broken. The woman who wrote the letter was seeking validation of her experiences from someone she saw as an authority–this is exactly what the response she got provided.In many ways, the analogy with homosexuality isn't a very good one, but here I think there is a useful analogy: Many people upon realizing they are a lesbian or a gay man are distressed by it because of negative societal messages about homosexuality. There are two ways to try to deal with that distress: you can tell them they're right to be distressed, tell them all the many supposed "causes" of homosexuality (with no actual evidence, just "clinical observation" by heteronormative therapists), and try to "cure" them. This was long the dominant approach in psychology and psychiatry. The other option is to normalize their experiences, tell them it's okay, and help them with connect with others with similar experiences. This is now the dominant approach in the mental health professions. With asexuality, there are the same two options. However, sexual normative views still dominate, so telling them they need to get fixed is still considered a perfectly legitimate options. Many asexuals have had very negative experiences in therapy because of therapists who assumed their asexuality must be a problem, so they wouldn't believe the asexual person, or they would assume this was something needing to be fixed, hindering the asexual person from getting help with the reason they went to therapy.Because we live in a culture that's not only sexually repressive, but also "asexually repressive" (feel free to google the term), many asexuals feel that there is something wrong with them. Many psychologists give long lists of supposed causes with no empirical support (just clinical observation)–both on a websites and in academic articles.Ultimately, I think the issue is this: many people, in trying to make sex "normal" rather than taboo have made sex normative and sexual disinterest taboo. Yes, lots of people like sex and it can be a very positive thing in their lives. But not everyone likes sex, and it is naive to assume that sexually, everyone is the same, or that if you like sex, everyone should like sex. (I can't assume that because I like linguistics, everyone should like linguistics.) Sexual desire is a big part of what makes it fun for most people; if someone doesn't experience that, it's probably not going to be all that fun.Hopefully this helps in trying to understand why many asexuals take issue with the sorts of views you have expressed.

    Like

  14. >As much as I love linguistics, I have never seen it compared to a physiological process. It is impossible have a discussion where people constantly try to compare things that are profoundly different in nature. Asexuality and homosexuality, sex and linguistics, apples and pink elephants. The only use of these senseless analogies is to deflect attention from one's lack of actual arguments.

    Like

  15. >Now try substituting the word "sex" with the word "food" in the last post and you can totally go and place it at anorexic websites. 🙂

    Like

  16. >Clarissa, I understand that you think regular sex is beneficial but you still haven't demonstrated how a lack of sex or sex drive is detrimental or even comparable to sleep deprivation or starvation.Sleep deprivation or starvation cause serious health issues. So far you haven't put forth an example of how sex deprivation can be harmful to someone. To me saying – sex can be beneficial is not the same as saying a lack of sex can be harmful.Can you give one example a lack of sex is dangerous to someone's health?Also why can't sex acceptance include the acceptance that some people just do get the same enjoyment out of it as others?

    Like

  17. >Allison, the whole system of organs in a person's body isn't functioning and you seriously ask how it can be bad foer one's health? Again, purely on the basis of my personal experiences, lack of sex makes my blood pressure go up, I start catching colds all the time. Of course, I have not experienced long-time sex deprivation, but I've seen people who have and detrimental effects were evident. In my personal opinion, there is simply no other reason for migraines than lack of sex. In my country, if you complain about migraines to a doctor, the first question you get asked is about your sex life.

    Like

  18. >Comparing sex to eating, drinking and sleeping is also a problematic analogy. Without food, water, and sleep, you die. Without sex, not so much. Lots of people are perfectly capable of having happy, healthy, and productive lives without sex. This is simply an empirical fact. Again, not so much for food, water and sleep. Finding food, water and sleep repulsive is a problem not because they are "physiological processes," but because finding these repulsive would have profoundly negative impacts on people's lives. By equating sex with theses because it is a "physiological" process is comparing the two because of one similarity in order to ignore the vitally important one.That's how analogies work: they're useful for the purpose of illustration by helping people to use their knowledge about one domain in understanding another. And they can be useful for the purpose of arguments because if two things are similar in some essential feature, they are likely to be similar in some other feature. The question is how relevant the similarity discussed is to the property to be generalized. In my comparison between asexuality and homosexuality, I recognize that there are a lot of differences, but I feel that they are similar in the particular area that I discussed. Again, with my linguistics analogy, in the vast majority of areas, people would be ridiculed if they said, "I like X, therefore everyone should like X" or even "Most people like X, therefore everyone should like X." Yet there is a widespread belief in our culture that sex is somehow fundamentally different, that it is okay to say "Most people like sex, therefore everyone should like sex." The reason you give is that it is a "physiological process" (could you define that?) But Everything I do involves physiological processes and viewing sex as a physiological process has the danger of ignoring that sex is lot more than just physiology. Sex is also about relationships and power and desire and pleasure; it's intimately connected to politics and culture and whether people fit into prescribed cultural norms. A fundamental assumption that you're making seems to be that everyone experiences sex basically the same. (They don't.)Also, a big part of the question is what effects on people telling them how messed up they must be for not being interested in sex. What happens is that people wanting validation, wanting acceptance, wanting to be told that it's okay to be themselves find their experiences dismissed and trivialized, they are told that they are broken, and they go about trying to live their lives based on who the cultural tells them they are supposed to be rather than who they are. Therapists have long been trying to make get the sexually disinterested interested in sex. And they have been failing miserably–the success rates tend to be very low, but no one really knows how low because of the rarity of controlled treatment outcome studies (If you don't believe me, you can read a paper called "Sexual Desire Disorder: A Review of controlled treatment studies.") Also, the "information" given on low sexual desire tends to collapse having lost interest in sex and having never been interested in sex into the same group even though, intuitively, these are very different things with very different "causes." Also, intuitively, people who have never been interested in sex are much less likely to be made interested than people who used to be interested but have lost interest.

    Like

  19. >the whole system of organs in a person's body isn't functioning and you seriously ask how it can be bad foer one's health?Not all systems are equally necessary to overall health. No one really knows what the appendix does. There are some body parts that can be removed and, though it may create some loss, the person remains overall fairly healthy. For other organs, not so much. Moreover, what you're talking about isn't physiological anyway. Whether the sexual organs work is a matter of physiology, but many asexuals have perfectly functional sexual organs. Sexual desire, however, is principally psychological. I think that by insisting that sex is a physiological process, you're obscuring this fact.

    Like

  20. >"sex is lot more than just physiology. Sex is also about relationships and power and desire and pleasure; it's intimately connected to politics and culture and whether people fit into prescribed cultural norms"so is food."many asexuals have perfectly functional sexual organs."many anorexics have perfectly functioning digestive tracts.This is fun.

    Like

  21. >I'm sorry, my friend, but if your long comment is aimed at convincing me that comparing linguistics and sex is a valid argument in a discussion, it failed to do that. A discussion constructed around such analogies does not make much sense to me.I'm glad, though, that you and I finally agree that "Sexual desire, however, is principally psychological". This was precisely my initial suggestion that precipitated this whole discussion.I will leave you with the following basic article on false analogies:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogyBest wishes!

    Like

  22. >Clarissa, you still haven't shown me how a lack of sex or a lack of sex drive (these being two different things) is physically detrimental to a person the same way a lack of food or sleep is.You've given your personal experiences but that's.. just personal experiences. What detrimental effects have you seen in others that is equivalent to extreme sleep deprivation or starvation.I can tell you all the serious things that a lack of sleep does to the body and all the serious things a lack of food does to the body but what can you show me that's is equivalent in a lack of sexual activity OR a lack of sex drive in someone who is otherwise healthy (ie doesn't have a medical condition that causes a lack of sex drive).As for personal experiences I've never had a migraine in my life or high blood pressure even when I've been celibate. And I know people who regularly have sex who also suffer from migraines. So while those those things may be true for you it's not the same across the board for every person.I really don't understand why sex acceptance can't include acceptance of those who don't want to have sex of have a very low sex drive.

    Like

  23. >Allison, I have never in my life encountered such a strange way of organizing a discussion as people are demonstrating on this topic. You say that my personal experiences mean nothing and in response give me … your personal experiences. Now the conversation has really come a full circle with you accusing me of lack of acceptance. Am I going to other people's sites in order to criticize their asexual lives? Am I actively seeking anybody out in order to say anything to them on the topic? Obviously not. Within the framework of this discussion I have been accused of fat-shaming, homophobia, intolerance and ignorance. Note how I don't use such terms to address my interlocutors. By the way, heightened irritability and aggression are the result of sexualfrustration.

    Like

  24. >Forgot to mention that I was also accused of promoting rape and forced marriages. Then I stopped reading for fear of finding out that I sacrifice christian infants, too. And these are the people who accuse me of intolerance. People who react to a simple opinion with a string of insults. It would be sad if it weren't so funny.

    Like

  25. >In responding to your post (and your comments), I'm trying not to be offensive. Name calling and insulting people are generally ineffective ways of convincing anyone of anything. I'm sorry if I've done that. The reason I joined the conversation is largely because I linked to your post on my own blog and felt that I shouldn't simply criticize from afar.The reason I responsed as I did is largely to promote acceptance of asexuality. (Yes, acceptance.) In your post, you basically said that telling an asexual person that they should accept themself was derives from a Puritanical view of sex and a fear toward "psychology" (vaguely defined to give a general sense of authority, yet having nothing to do with any of the research on asexuality done within the field of psychology) by which you mean that people who don't experience sexual attraction shouldn't accept themselves, they should view themselves as broken, needing of getting cured, and needing to be pathologized.It's precisely these sorts of sex-normative attitudes that keep asexuals silent, make them hesitant to come out to their friends (yes, come out). If they can expect to hear the kind of response on the article you commented on, they may feel safe enough to tell people close to themselves. But if they expect to have their experiences dismissed or be told how messed up they are (as you seem to suggest), then they're just going to hide their feelings, thoughts and experiences and pretend to be just like everyone else, even though they're not.Also, I have a particular interest in asexuality in academia, and asexual students in your class are likely to feel ostracized and feel that they need to keep silent as you demean them. I do not think this is at all your intention, and yet it seems to be a real danger.p.s. You say that my personal experiences mean nothing and in response give me … your personal experiences. Actually, you're using your personal experience not to communicate what is normal for you, but to generalize that what is normal for you must be normal for everyone. (i.e. you're using your experience to pathologize asexuals.) One person's experience cannot be legitimately generalized to everyone. However, a single person's experience can legitimately be used to refute a claim that "everyone is like X." If even one person isn't, they claim is invalid.

    Like

  26. >I offered my personal experience to counter yours since you seem to think that's enough "proof" that a lack of sex is bad for someone.You're main argument through this is sex is physiological and that a lack of sex (or sex drive) is on par with sleep deprivation or starvation and so a lack of sex is bad for people.Yet you can't come up with one example of how this is true, except to say that migraines are related to sex deprivation and I did offer a counter to that, again only my personal experience but the only thing I have.The other thing I want to know is why can't sex acceptance include accepting those who don't want to have sex?That's not far off the topic at all and I haven't accused you of anything.Although by your last sentence it seems you are saying I'm argumentative due to a lack of sex or sex drive. I don't think it's argumentative to ask for proof of such an assertion.

    Like

  27. >It is very tiresome to have some statements ascribed to me that I never made and then to be condemned for them. I have never said that anybody is "broken." You came up with this word. I have never said that anybody needs to be pathologized.You came up with this word. I never said that anybody is "messed up." You came up with this word. Do you really fail to see that you are arguing with your own projections?I feel that I've been as understanding as possible but it's getting to be really annoying to be accused of saying some stupid things that I never even said. I have to ask you to kindly refrain from coming back until you learn to argue with what people actually say and not with what you think they might have wanted to say.

    Like

  28. >If you feel that I’m misinterpreting you, I would like clarification on what I am misreading. Here is my reading of the facts. On feministing.com, there is an article you are responding to. In it, a writer writes in commenting on how she is 20 and stopped getting crushes on people when she was 10 or 11. She had boyfriends, none of whom she was attracted to. Because of this, she thought she might be a lesbian (there is, btw, common among asexuals because our in our culture, there is an assumption that if you’re not straight, you must be gay), but she realized that she’s not attracted to girls either. She doesn’t like touching, doesn’t want to have sex, and doesn’t find stimulating herself very interesting. She thinks she might be asexual but wants assurance from an authority, and she wants advice on how to deal with her mother who is putting a lot of pressure on her to date even though she doesn’t want to. The advice columnist writes back telling her that asexuality is an identity, and like any identity, you have to figure out for yourself what makes most sense for yourself. She tries to reassure her that there’s nothing wrong with being asexual, though encourages the writer to the possibility that the future may bring unexpected things, gives her some advice about her mother, and gives her advice for how to accept her asexuality and to connect with other asexuals.Basically, the article encouraged self-acceptance and encouraged the person to find others with similar experiences. You responded to this by saying this response is political correctness taken to the extreme. Why? Because there is something wrong with not being interested in sex. You compare it to not being interested in food, water and sleeping. How am I supposed to read this as meaning something other than there is something seriously wrong with not being interested in sex? You say that telling this person to accept her asexuality is seriously wrong. Instead, she should look for psychological “causes.” (The only reading of that that I can find is (psycho)pathological cause for why she has this serious problem. (You probably wouldn’t tell someone that they need to try to find a psychological cause for liking monopoly, for example.) In your comment Nobody would (at least for now, I think) suggest to form an identity group around this problem., you seem to be rather critical of forming an asexual identity. Yet on asexuality.org (the site mentioned in the article) we find precisely that. It would be safe to assume that people identifying as asexual have reasons for doing so. I don’t see how you article can be read as anything but discouraging self-acceptance and pathologizing asexuality. If you see some other way of reading it, I would like to know how you intended your post. And given the strength of response, I think it should at least be clear that your article is open to a very anti-asexual reading, even if that's not what you intended.

    Like

  29. >1. I think there is a psychological reason for everything, including liking monopoly. 2. I think that forming identity groups around anything is dangerous for those who do it. 3. I have not used the word "psychopathological" you did. Once again, you are projecting. 4. You are not misinterpreting. You are lying. I have never used words like broken, psychopathological, etc. to refer to any one. You should either prove that I did, or take all of your unfounded accusations back. I'm asking you again, as politely as I can, to please stop ascribing your words, thoughts, and terminology to me

    Like

  30. >The issue has to do with what someone explicitly says and what they imply. (In language use, much of what is communicated is done through implication.) Most of the not-so-nice things I accused you of saying are not explicitly said, but I felt that they were implied, and I think that many (possibly most) people in reading your post would also get those interpretations.Another blogger recently posted a response to the same article in feministing. I feel that it expresses my thoughts much better than I have been able to do here. So I'll link to it and make that the end of my comments on this post. Don't you realize X is unhealthy?

    Like

  31. >I'm intrigued by your opinion that identity groups are dangers (does this include things like feminists or Democrats or just things like pro-ana ?_But really I want to know what you bases this opinion: I quote "In my personal opinion, this is akin to saying that a woman has a right to starve herself to death." How is not having sex the same as starvation?

    Like

  32. >Honestly. Sex is not obligate. Food, water, sleep are obligate. You don't eat or drink for extended periods of time – you die. No exceptions. You don't sleep for extended periods – you become unable to accurately perceive the world around you, due to hallucinations. I believe that there is a rare dysautonomia that results in chronic severe insomnia and eventually death, though the physiology may be complicated (I am not a neurologist, I just stumbled across this info while doing some neuropathology reading).There are nuns out there pushing 100, still mentally sharp after 70 or more years of (presumed) celibacy.I fail to see what is wrong about telling the young woman that she has the right to not have sex and not feel guilty about not having sex or not wanting to have sex. It's her body. If she doesn't think that lack of sex is a problem for herself (as opposed to a problem for her parents), then there is no reason to push the woman into psychological counseling. If she gets to the point where she wants to be sexual with someone but doesn't have enough libido to initiate or respond, then that's a problem that could be addressed with a medical and a psychological exam for inhibitory conditions. A current asexual status may be a psychologically healthy adaptation from a sexual baseline, for all we know of her situation. She may be simply too busy and too tired to want sex, if she has to work full time and go to school (or other situations).All that aside, there may be an issue not with sex but with physical contact – obsessive fear of germs? presence of Asperger's (autism spectrum) syndrome? body image problem? neurologic hypersensitivity? Still, she's an adult and she needs to make her own decision regarding seeking or not seeking medical or psychological evaluation.

    Like

  33. >Clarissa, it is this attitude that keeps many asexuals from realizing that they simply have no interest. In a society drenched with sex, we get subtle and not so subtle messages that there is something wrong with people who don't want it.You are fiercely defending your position because you LIKE sex, we get it. I grew up in the repressed environments you describe, but repression does not equal a lack of desire. I was repressed and have no desire.But you're also missing the point, the reproductive organs of many asexuals work just fine. This post has gotten undue attention simply because you have a gut reaction that something is wrong with asexuals and they should seek help. If you want me to seek out psychiatric or physical help for lack of attraction, please let me know where I can mail my medical/psychiatric bills to you for payment.

    Like

  34. >This girl is probably upset because society tells her that hse must want sex. Try posting you're asexual on a forum. I have- I've gotten the worst responses. You get anything from beign called a plant, getting told you'll learn to love it, I've even seen people who say asexuals need to be raped! If everyone told you you were abnormal and wrong for being who you are- how happy owuld you be? I'm guessing not very.This girl can try to find a solution, yes. But if she is asexual, then trying to fix herself will be about as succesful and make her about as happy as a gay man trying to turn himself straight.I'm asexual and married, to another wonderful asexual. We're very happy. We're also both virgins. And there is nothing physically, mentally, etc wrong with us. It's just another sexual orientation- just like any other.

    Like

  35. >You seem really uneducated about asexuality. It has nothing to do with celibacy, as many asexuals do engage in sex. Asexuality is defined as not being sexually attracted to anyone. Some of us have normal sex drives, some rather low, but the point is that we don't feel sexual attraction towards people.I have tried sex. I just don't find it interesting and I just don't care about it. I define myself as homoromantic; I'm a female who likes girls, I just not interested in sex, and don't get "turned on" by people. My sex drive is lower than "usual" but it's there.Sex isn't needed for survival. Eating and sleeping are, so I can't see your comparison. Is it wrong that I'd rather masturbate than engage in sex with another being?Do you really know anything about the asexual community?

    Like

  36. >With regard to lack of sex being detrimental to life, I give you two words:The Pope.Not asexual, but certainly celibate, and quite healthy.

    Like

  37. >Dear friends, I'm going to respond in tis thread one last time because this is getting a little repetitive. After that, let's considered it closed. Ivan (first comment here) said that asexual people represent less than 1 percent of humanity. However, anorgasmic women represent a lot more than 0,5 percent. This happens, in my view, because society tells women that sex is not crucial, not necessary and is less important than other things (namely, being in a relationship). Many women betray their sexuality and live sexually unfulfilled lives as a result. As a feminist, I'm bothered by this. You are right when you say I don't know anything about the asexual community. That's why I didn't go to any asexual site to express my opinions. I went to a feminist site which promotes what in my opinion is a limiting view of female sexuality. This view of sexuality promotes a deeply patriarchal way of life. And that bothers me. As for the Pope, I also have two words for you: compensatory mechanisms. Thank you for participation. I now consider this discussion closed.

    Like

  38. >You're leaving out male asexuals, though. They're about half of the community…

    Like

  39. >"It is also the result of a deeply Puritanical view of sex…"A Puritanical view of sex would be something like "Sex is wrong." Saying "It's not wrong to not like sex" is not the same. It's actually more of a live-and-let-live attitude; you can like sex or you can dislike sex, and both are okay."If anybody found the idea of eating or sleeping (also physiological processes) "absolutely repulsive", we wouldn't be as likely to dismiss this problem with a lot of well-meaning but ultimately empty words. Nobody would (at least for now, I think) suggest to form an identity group around this problem."That's because you need to eat and sleep to live. If you stop eating and sleeping, you will die within a few weeks. However, you do NOT need sex to live. You can go your entire life without ever having sex and still be perfectly healthy. This comparison makes no sense. I don't think it's taking "political correctness to the extreme" to suggest that one should tolerate something which doesn't harm anyone, such as asexuality.

    Like

  40. >Besides all this, sex is one of the best experiences available to human beings.In YOUR experience. YOUR experience is most assuredly not MINE. It is probably not ANYONE ELSE'S but yours (much like mine is not anyone else's but mine) and I would highly suggest you stop trying to shove your mindset on other people under the extremely faulty pretense of whatever batshit definition of 'feminism' you're going by. If you honestly are out to make a statement about patriarchal definitions of sex, then I am pretty damn sure you would never have worded your post to include "identity groups" and a terribly SILLY comparison of sex to food.OTHER PEOPLE BESIDES YOU EXIST. WITH DIFFERENT NEEDS. DIFFERENT *GASP* WANTS, EVEN. LEARN.

    Like

  41. >Clarissa,I highly suggest that you research more about asexuality. I don't mean to sound rude at all, but I think that maybe your article could benefit from a more educated perspective. I would appreciate it greatly if, after doing research on sexuality, you did a follow-up post. I would love to read it.Peace.

    Like

  42. >For those who feel the need to participate without reading what was said previously, I repeat: this discussion is closed. I'm always ready to discuss anything with calm, reasonable, and polite people (such as pretzelboy, Allison, and more recently Erbs). Those, however, who come to repeat things that have been discussed 100 times, or those who are so enraged with the fact that somebody somewhere dared to have an opinion do not interest me as interlocutors. Coming here to scream "batshit," "SILLY" and "LEARN" in capital letters is not, in my opinion, an acceptable way to engage in a discussion. I don't even want to imagine what would make people want to seek out blogs of those with differing opinions and to engage in such public fits of hysteria. Curiously, these are always the same people who scream "tolerance above all". If there are still people who fail to understand that for me this is not about the asexual community, I can't help you. Once again: the discussion is closed until the participants start behaving in a way I find more acceptable.

    Like

  43. >Thank you for this. I'm on the queer_rage community, a fantastic community- or it was a fantastic community, until all these emo 15 years olds started going on about how they were asexual and why wouldn't anyone believe them? Er, because not being interested in sex is a common sign of many psychological problems? Also, lots of people are slow to develop. Declaring you're asexual at 15 is going to make you look pretty silly in a few years time when your sex hormones kick in. They're wanking about this now, and I want to tell them they really should talk to someone about that, because they're not healthy, but the mods only care about the asexuals and go into freak out mode if anyone touches the asexual whiny babies.

    Like

  44. >In response to Anonymous: Please educate yourself about the asexual community. Most people on AVEN and other asexual websites are adults, many of them over the age of 30–most of them are much older than 15 years of age. David Jay, who founded AVEN, is currently 26 years old and still asexual.Clarissa: Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that feminism involves respect of others' sexual choices, such as the respecting the choice to engage in vanilla sex, bondage/BDSM, etc. Doesn't this include respecting the choice not to engage in sexual relations (for whatever reasons)?

    Like

  45. >Clarissa, your entire attitude is one similar to a person who told a Mormon friend of mind that he needed to drink alcohol in order to fully enjoy life. Obviously the person who said that enjoyed drinking, but the statement showed a complete lack of respect for the Mormon acquaintance's belief system.Instead of trying to say people haven't read it when they have, it's time to accept that your points simply aren't valid. If you want to continuing sounding like the Pat Robertson of sexual fundamentalism that's your choice, but it just makes you look bigoted and intolerant.

    Like

  46. >I just checked out the queer_rage community and it's a great place! Thank you so much for telling me about it!!Hezaa: as I have repeated many times already, having "respect" for me does not mean not daring to have or express an opinion. It's actually very disrespectful, in my view because this attitude infantilizes and belittles the group in question.please read my most recent post on Quashing Dissent.

    Like

  47. >Sinister Porpoise, if you had in fact read what has been said, you would know why I don't take this screaming about intolerance seriously.

    Like

  48. >Mm. -Having- read most of the comments as well as the OP and surfed around, I've saved most of my commentary for my own spot.I'll just point this out here:1) You title the post "Asexuality"2) You make a number of pronouncements about asexuality 3) Some people who -are- asexuals, i.e. "people who have direct experience of the thing you are making sweeping pronouncements about" come in to correct you on some the things you've said, courteously enough, in fact, especially at first.4) You then proceed to -not- directly engage any of their actual points, merely either congratulate or scold people for their "tone"5) And then say, "for me this is not about the asexual community."Can you see how some people might find this just a wee tad problematic? Take it rather personally, even? Get aggravated? If I write about about "Ukrainian immigrants," make a whole lot of sweeping and frankly patronizing pronouncements about what it's like in the Ukraine, what it's like to be an immigrant from the Ukraine, all the while admitting that I've never been there and don't have experience of being an immigrant, just make some rather generalized boilerplate based on my interpretation of someone else's theory, and then some Ukrainians come in to correct me, and then I say "for me, this is not about the Ukrainian/immigrant community," what does that make me? Reasoned? Civilized? A free thinker? Engaging in honest discourse? You think?

    Like

  49. >and that's without even the whole pathologizing bit. Which, by the way, since you were wondering, -is- a good parallel with the gay/lesbian/etc experience: i.e. most of us have direct experience with having been pathologized and disprespected for our sexuality (yes, "sexuality" includes "lack thereof," in fact) even when said sexuality is in fact none of anyone else's business, isn't harming anyone else, and in fact the people who say or imply they're lecturing us/attempting a "cure" "for our own good" clearly do -not- have our best interests in mind, but rather their own agenda.

    Like

  50. >To both Clarissa and Anonymous 5:40 a.m.,I think the main problem I have with all of this is that people who are not me are trying to tell me what I and people like me should be and disguising it as what we "are" and are refusing to accept, or what we should want by saying it's what any functional person would really like. It's unfair, and frankly condescending, to say about people that the puritanical patriarchy has brainwashed them into not wanting sex (I find this a bit antithetical to feminism anyways – isn't it the belief that women ARE smart and capable enough to make their own decisions about their bodies?), or that they're immature and will grow out of it. If someone happens to eventually want or at least like sex, or if the benefits of having it outweigh the costs for them at some point for whatever reason, then great. But at the point that someone is coming out as asexual, I can think of no way in which it helps anybody, you or them, to invalidate the conclusion they've come to about themselves.As far as the argument that sex is good and even necessary for one – If I may, I'll accept, but revise, the food comparison. I would say that asexuality is a little like having an aversion to a food that most people like and/or that's very good for people. Would life be better for someone who couldn't stand the smell of bananas or the texture of salad if they could eat these foods without throwing up? Maybe. But if, as things are, they get sick if they try to eat these foods, the health benefits might not be worth the costs of trying to learn to like them. So let them use their multivitamins or whatever other compensatory measures to make up for any lost nutrients, or choose to do nothing at all. It's no one's business to tell them what they need or should want in case like this.Likewise, maybe it's true that one gets headaches and irritability from not having sex. But you know what? I'd rather stock up on ibuprofen and get some hobbies that allow me to vent my anger in a productive way than let someone do things to my body that I'm uncomfortable with. I can imagine that someone will want to jump on me for that description of sex, but that's how I see it. I'm simply uncomfortable with invasive physical contact, as I am with a number of other sensory experiences, and sex falls under the category of invasive physical contact. I get emotional fulfillment from others through a lot of things, like watching movies, making up stories and having good debate, but sex just isn't conducive to trust or love in my mind. This is abnormal, but, as it does not interfere with my day-to-day or overall functioning, it's not by definition disordered. Such is the case with many asexuals, whether or not they're repulsed by sexual contact as I am. So who is anyone else to tell us that we should be otherwise?If I'm unhappy or unhealthy because I'm not having sex, I'll see an actual psychologist or doctor about it, and work something out that makes me better without making me uncomfortable. All I want – and, I think, what most "aces" want – from people who are not being paid for medical advice is acceptance and the belief that we are capable enough to define ourselves as makes sense to us.

    Like

Comment navigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: