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.

  • Skybreaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.