- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
New research on asexuality shows why it’s so important for doctors and therapists to distinguish between episodes of low libido and a consistent lack of sexual attraction
…
Over the past two decades psychological studies have shown that asexuality should be classified not as a disorder but as a stable sexual orientation akin to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Both cultural awareness and clinical medicine have been slow to catch on. It’s only recently that academic researchers have begun to look at asexuality not as an indicator of health problems but as a legitimate, underexplored way of being human.
In biology, the word “asexual” typically gets used in reference to species that reproduce without sex, such as bacteria and aphids. But in some species that do require mating to have offspring, such as sheep and rodents, scientists have observed individuals that don’t appear driven to engage in the act.
You must log in or register to comment.
“Iffin’ you don’t like fuckin’ there must be sumthin wrong wit’chu’!”
Humans are slaves to sex. As an asexual it’s so nice to be free of that. I see it as an upgrade, personally.
Asexual ≠ Not liking sex. Asexual means not feeling sexual attraction. There are plenty of us with a perfectly active libido.
Interesting. I didn’t know this. Personally, I actively avoid sex. No interest.
Yep. Asexuality and aromanticism define a lack of a type of attraction. There are a lot of different ways to group attraction types but here is one of the most common ones.
Libido is entirely seperate and in many cases is only somewhat related. Of course, there are plenty of ace people like you too. But personally all of the ace people I know are the horniest people in my friend group. Not finding anyone sexually attractive doesn’t stop a person from being a theoretical slut.
Honest question, if you are ace but also very horny, what are you horny about…? What makes you horny? This seems a bit contradictory to me.
I’m not ace, and I feel horny about things I’m sexually attracted to. I can’t imagine feeling horny for other things?
The gist of it is that it’s the act not the person. Not feeling sexual attraction basically just means that thwre is noone I find “hot”. There are still people I like for platonic reasons and I can still appreciate asthetic beauty but I never look at a person and find them sexually apealing. That doesn’t mean they’re unapealing it’s just that I lack that specific feeling. It’s like describing the taste of light; it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Even if there is noone I find sexually attractive the act of sex still appeals to me just because it is fun and feels good. When it comes to potential sexual partners platonic attraction is typically what I base that on. It just a fun activity between friends like playing a board game or watching a movie. You can still constantly desire sex without feeling sexual attraction, thus horny.
You could just be horny for your own pleasure, and not towards your sexual partner.
Huuummm but then I feel the word horny has different meanings for us. I’m not horny for pleasure, I’d say. I’m horny for things I’m sexually attracted to. And I feel pleasure in indulging in that. The horniness is not for the pleasure, it’s a feeling that represents that sexual attraction.
How would you describe being “horny for your own pleasure”?
I hope I’m not coming off like a dick, I’m just genuinely curious I swear 😆
Well, I’m not asexual, so I can’t really answer for them. But there are times where I am more turned on by the feeling of pleasure than by the subject I am faced with, in a sense. I would assume that is how it works for asexual people.
*Not ace. Getting horny for me feels like a reptile brain thing intruding in my normal life. It’s like my body has a very limited use superpower, and can randomly provide hornyness at specific and un-specific moments :) I responded to you because ‘just getting horny’ seems weird to you, while it doesn’t to me.
nah sex is fun lol
Both cultural awareness and clinical medicine have been slow to catch on
…because they refuse to listen, not because any of this is new.
It’s probably just an issue with oxytocin.
It does a lot of stuff, but what’s important here is it’s about social bonding. When it’s not functioning correctly, you just never get lonely, you don’t have the negatives from lack of social relationships including romantic.
Also, it’s what make orgasms feel amazing. So without it, your getting rid of the two main positives for sexual relationships.
You might still enjoy the act of sex, you just don’t get the huge addicting high at the end of it.
So it’s at most a “sure, why not” thing compared to everyone else. And for some people, it’s just not worth the hassle to varying degrees.
We also haven’t identified any genetic markers, but there’s likely some out there. And there’s environmental issues when young that can effect it your whole life.
So we barely understand the “nurture” component and no idea about the “nature” side of things.
Edit:
Rather than keep responding to the same comments, please just scroll down for more information before replying.
Hey there chief, got any sources for your comment? Like any kind of peer reviewed references to the links between oxytocin and loneliness, romantic relationships and orgasm? Would be interesting to read.
You’d be better off with general academic articles or even just the Wikipedia for it if you don’t know anything about oxytocin yet
But here you go:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-48708-003
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22281209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3183515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8009111/
Unless you have a background in medicine/psychology it’ll probably be over your head. But if your familiar with any type of research you can probably manage.
I’d start with something this tho
Thanks, that was actually really interesting and I learnt stuff I didn’t know beforehand. The thing is your comment seemed to trigger quite a few people (me included) because it seemed insensitive. Thankfully you later commented that “For some people (like all the ones in the article) they want it fixed. Others are perfectly happy the way they are, and both are fine and none of anyone else’s business” so you obviously get it. It’s funny how easy it is for people to misunderstand each other in forums like this. This has been a learning experience for me.
No worries.
Came here from /all like most people probably did. I was used to /science on Reddit where most people have a scientific background.
So my comment assumed familiarity with all the basic stuff. And yeah, science wise you have to be a little insensitive talking about this stuff, but most of the time it’s described as “clinical” instead.
Which has not worked out well from all the replies I got lol.
I just didn’t know the tone of this community
I mean it’s generally bad form to attempt to explain why someone is of a particular orientation. You don’t say “well you’re only gay because you have trauma,” because that’s fucked up and overtly reductive of a key aspect of their personality.
I don’t experience sexual attraction. I still get horny. Orgasms feel great. I get lonely all the time, and still need social interaction. My experience is far from unique amongst asexual people. I don’t think it’s as simple as a single chemical imbalance.
At the same time, I am scientifically-minded, and understand that my mind arises as a product of the processes of my brain and body. I don’t disagree that hormones play as a factor in my orientation, but not everyone in the ace community shares that sentiment, and of course having your orientation chalked up to a specific medical or phychological “quirk” generally feels bad.
If you dont mind me asking what is the difference between sexual attraction and being horny?
Sexual attraction requires a object of attraction, usually a person who you feel the urge to have sex with. Arousal isn’t directed.
So does arousal have no trigger in your case¿? Is morning wood an example of such arousal where it is not directed¿?
Basically. Sometimes I just realize I’m horny. If the situation allows, I may go deal with it. I’m sure there have been times where a stimulus of a sexual nature produced an arousal response in me, but never from a desire for intercourse with the object of the stimulus.
Thanks for indulging my curiosity.
No problem. As an aside, and just so you know, my experience may not be unique, but it also does not describe that of all asexual people. There is a WHOLE lot of variation.
Solid
wow I didn’t know being Ace made me immune to lonliness I guess all those days where I felt the complete emptiness from having a lack of relationship was just me being goofy :p
You’ve got to be careful how you’re referring to it. Asexual is not the same thing as aromantic. Confusing the two causes people to misunderstand both.
But neither are binary things… People can be asexual and/or aromantic in lots of different ways to various degrees.
And both are related to oxytocin. Either production or uptake, maybe both.
No two people are exactly the same.
Everyone is so hung up on labels, if this wasn’t a sub literally called c/science, I would have put all the disclaimers in there. But I assumed people on here wouldn’t need it, and understood this stuff is always a scale.
Its not a problem though
Sure…
Anytime you’re taking about neurotransmitters or hormones, there’s not really a “right” or “wrong”.
Just natural human variation. And there’s a shit ton of human variation.
They actually make oxytocin nasal spray now. But if someone is happy with who they are, it’s not like they have to take it. I don’t know of any studies where it’s used with asexuality though, I think just autism.
For some people (like all the ones in the article) they want it fixed. Others are perfectly happy the way they are, and both are fine and none of anyone else’s business
When it’s not functioning correctly
Not functioning in the same way as the majority of people does not mean it is not functioning correctly.
TLDR: the language used to talk about science isn’t the same as common day to day language.
Long explanation:
It’s a neurotransmitter…
It exists to do something.
If for one reason or another that’s not happening, or just too much or too less, then the biological process is not functioning correctly.
We’re not talking about if that’s a good or bad thing.
Like, I don’t have a specific liver enzyme that breaks opioids down into active metabolites. It’s nonfunctioning.
But that’s a good thing, because the trade off to common opioids not working, is better to me than the opposite where I’m incredibly likely to get addictied from metabolizing too fast.
If oxytocin isn’t able to work, then something in the process isn’t functioning correctly. That’s not a judgement on what’s normal or best. It’s a factual statement about a biological process. One part might not work at all, both parts might not, or you might just be on different ends of a couple different scales.
Or like pheromones. Humans can produce very small amounts, we just don’t have the organ to pick it up. It’s a system where it’s 100% for it to be non functional.
That’s kind of how evolution ebbs and flows. Sometimes stuff just stops working if there’s no pressure for it.
If for one reason or another that’s not happening, or just too much or too less, then the biological process is not functioning correctly.
The range that is used to define too much or too little is based on research that starts with an assumption that there is a correct range. While some things like cholesterol have clear consistency with levels and buildup, not everything is that clearly defined.
Keep in mind that homosexuality was scientifically defined as ‘not correct’ for a long time based on ‘biological processes not functioning correctly’ because the scientists that defined it that waay assumed that sexuality only exists for procreation. While there is a difference between scientific language and common usage for a lot of things, using terms like correct and normal outside of the scientific context has harmed a lot of people and just saying that is the scientific terminology doesn’t help when the scientific terminology was the problem.
There are lots of asexuals who can orgasm just fine and feel amazing after just like anyone else, and who can be lonely. You know sex isn’t the only form of social bonding right? Asexuals are perfectly capable of forming social relationships, including romantic ones since being asexual and aromantic aren’t the same thing. This comment is so off base it’s frankly a bit ridiculous, you clearly have no idea how asexuality works so maybe you shouldn’t make sweeping assumptions about it.
Who taught all you people that neurotransmitters were binary?
It’s starting to get concerning…
You certainly talk about them like they’re binary. You talk like someone who doesn’t actually know anything about asexual people, and I say that as someone who is asexual myself. Imagine if someone tried to narrow down being gay or bi to a single chemical, it’s ridiculous.
Incorrect. It’s not a disorder or dysfunction. It’s a sexual attraction type just like gay or straight, and I would appreciate some respect, instead of this archaic “you’re just sick”
As someone who is Asexual and been in relationships, I’ve still not had sexual attraction to my partners, and still had oxytocin highs.
Instead of getting offended and thinking it’s a binary thing and everyone is either asexual or not:
Remember that any time someone talks about hormones or neurotransmitters, there is no “right” just “average”.
And the most unique human on the planet would be the hypothetical person who is dead smack on the “average” for the 100s of different ones.
Pointing out what causes differences isn’t the same as saying we need to get everyone in the average.
Hell, the entire article is about asexual people wanting to know the “why”…
Did you even read it yet?
On the contrary, the article listed in the OP is about people experiencing medical discrimination due to a lack of awareness that asexuality can be a valid orientation. The asexual people quoted in their personal anecdotes about their medical care were reporting that medical and psychiatric professionals continually misdiagnosed or gave erroneous treatment based on assumptions around what “healthy” sexual desire looks like.
Essentially, imagine someone posted an article talking about how medical professionals are finally recognizing being gay isn’t a medical issue that needs to be “fixed”, and then you respond saying what the physiological causes of being gay could be. You’re getting kick back because it’s at best pretty tone deaf, no matter whether it’s backed up with evidence or not.
It’s literally the intro and conclusion of the article…
In graduate school people often asked Megan Carroll whether she was gay. Her sociology dissertation was on inequalities within communities of gay fathers, so her research participants were curious about how she identified. “I would say, ‘Oh, I’m maybe mostly straight? I don’t really know. It’s complicated.’” It was, at the time, the closest she could get to the truth. She’d had crushes on both boys and girls in high school and had been in a relationship with a man; being around her romantic interests sent her heart fluttering in her chest. But nothing like that happened when she considered having sex with any of them—she simply wasn’t interested. Her friends assured her she just needed to meet the right person, someone who would light her fire.
When that hadn’t happened by the time she was 18, Carroll thought she might simply have a low libido and went looking for an explanation. Thinking her birth control might be to blame, she spoke with a nurse, who suggested that perhaps her boyfriend was “just a bad lover.” Then Carroll wondered whether it was the pills she was taking to treat her depression. Over the next 12 years she visited multiple therapists, psychiatrists and physicians and tried different antidepressants—including a less commonly prescribed drug that gave her tachycardia, or a faster heart rate. Eventually she settled on one that had shown no measurable effect on sex drive in clinical trials.
Conclusion:
It’s not just young people who are coming around. When Carroll lectures about asexuality, she often tells a story about her mother, Laura Vogel, a licensed professional counselor who specializes in recovery from sexual trauma. Vogel knew traumatic experiences could decrease someone’s desire for sex, but for a long time she didn’t know that asexuality could be something entirely separate from that. When Carroll came out as asexual to her mother in 2017, Vogel began reading up on the subject and realized how her lack of awareness might have affected her clients. “That was a learning period for me,” Vogel told me recently. Since then, if a client expresses little to no desire to have sex, she sends them home with resources about asexuality to see whether it resonates.
“If a therapist had done what my mom now does … it’s hard to describe what that would have meant for me personally,” Carroll says. “That awareness can save asexual people years and years of uncertainty.”
It’s hard for anyone to understand why something happens when you respond to people talking about why it’s happening by plugging your ears and yelling.
You might not care about why, but lots of people do. Why get in the way of that?
The whole reason there’s medical discrimination, is because medical professionals think it’s due to past trauma.
Talking about what may actually cause it, fixes that problem.
You’re complaining about a valid issue, it’s just you’re also complaining about the people trying to fix it mate…
Her friends assured her she just needed to meet the right person, someone who would light her fire. When that hadn’t happened by the time she was 18, Carroll thought she might simply have a low libido and went looking for an explanation.
Do you think she would have sought out medical advice if she wasn’t under social pressure to be sexual, or was aware asexuality existed?
Thinking her birth control might be to blame, she spoke with a nurse, who suggested that perhaps her boyfriend was “just a bad lover.”
Would the nurse say that to a woman who said she was gay?
Then Carroll wondered whether it was the pills she was taking to treat her depression. Over the next 12 years she visited multiple therapists, psychiatrists and physicians and tried different antidepressants—including a less commonly prescribed drug that gave her tachycardia, or a faster heart rate.
The medical professionals she saw were not aware asexuality was a thing and so she received erroneous and subpar treatment. This article is not about an asexual person’s journey to find out why they are the way they are or something like that. It’s very clearly about fighting discrimination. As you quoted:
“If a therapist had done what my mom now does … it’s hard to describe what that would have meant for me personally,” Carroll says. “That awareness can save asexual people years and years of uncertainty.”
As someone who is demi I experienced a lot of social pressure around sex and sexuality and experienced the same kind of doubts about myself that a gay person might have 40 years ago. Again, if you came into a thread about medical professionals finally not treating gay people like they are mentally ill with explanations of how people are/become gay, you’d look like an asshole, regardless of if you were right or not.
Do you think she would have sought out medical advice if she wasn’t under social pressure to be sexual, or was aware asexuality existed?
Sounds like you agree with me that talking about why people are different and that variation is 100% normal would be beneficial
Not sure why you’re so upset that we agree, but I don’t think I’m going to keep responding
LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER
I’m a pansexual with some asexual relationship preferences and I’m SO excited for more awareness. I’ve had a good percentage of partners who were made to feel bad by their own expectations of what they should be doing in a relationship and it’s so fucken stupid.
You’re not weird or wrong because you don’t look at this or that thing through a sexual lens, you might even be healthy for it. 🙊
If you don’t have sexual attraction further opposite sex, you have mental issue. People try to create so many label and normalise something that shouldn’t be. If after puberty you don’t have sexual attraction for the opposite sex, there is something that isn’t working correctly, it would be nice to research this further instead of saying, I’m asexual and it’s normal.
The primary role of the human specie is to reproduce, so many things in our body is made for this purpose.
They researched it, and found that it’s not a “mental issue”, it’s normal.
Over the past two decades psychological studies have shown that asexuality should be classified not as a disorder but as a stable sexual orientation akin to homosexuality or heterosexuality
Going by how OP worded their comment, I can’t imagine they’re too enthused about homosexuality being acknowledged as a stable sexual orientation either
I don’t worry about how enthused people are by it. I was responding to the words, “…it would be nice to research this further…”, on a post about the research being done.
Right you are, I didn’t mean to gatekeep. More of a subtle dig at the IMO out of place bigotry on display on the original comment.
No sweat, hope you have a good day/evening!
for the opposite sex
Sorry. But homophobia is a mental decies.
If you do not pass down YOUR genes (inb4 muh siblings muh cousins), you have failed biologically speaking. This is the truth and no amount of excuses can change this. YOUR line ends here. Your siblings or cousins might pass down some similar parts of your genome, but they are not you. Maybe if you have an identical twin who have children, then you can say this is not true. The purpose of life is to make more life. This is a fact.
@Chickenstalker @MicroWave So I guess most ants are biological failures then, since they don’t reproduce. Funny how they’re so abundant to the point that their aggregate biomass rivals that of our own.
So? Some biological ‘purpose of life’ is irrelevant to me. Humans are not amoebas, we are far more than our reproductive organs so why reduce us to that? What is your point and why are you making it here? Asexual doesn’t mean infertile.
If you think “more humans” is the only thing you can contribute to society, you have failed not biologically, but in every other aspect
