Jezebel's article on asexuality: Some People Just Aren't Super Into Sex, and That's Fine

[backscatter712]

I'm following up on an earlier discussion on a WIRED article, discussed on DU here.

Some People Just Aren't Super Into Sex, and That's Fine

These days, lust feels so ubiquitous that it's genuinely refreshing to hear about people who just aren't into sex. Our Fifty Shades fatigue may actually have an upside if the sex-averse and sex-indifferent start getting more media coverage and balancing out the lusty, sexy mainstream.

In a recent piece at Wired, Kat McGowan goes to a campus outreach center at UT Knoxville in Tennessee and talks to a group of people who identify as asexual (meaning not into sex) or demisexual (meaning rarely, but sometimes, into sex). Though such people represent, according to McGowan, anywhere from 1 to 6 percent of the population, the fact of not being DTF is still a barely understood orientation, often mocked and frequently considered abnormal or dysfunctional. These students identify by a variety of unofficial terms coined from collaborative efforts online, such as aromantic asexual, heteroromantic demisexual, panromantic gray-asexual. McGowan notes that these are not "fixed identities," but rather, "beacons."

...

But try telling that to the friends and family members of asexuals, who often stigmatize their loved ones when they wonder—as McGowan notes—whether these orientations are simply the result of a phase, closeted homosexuality, hormone trouble, or trauma. Many of McGowan's interview subjects insist to her that they are not simply shy prudes. Some of them, like one Genevieve, dream more of talking on the phone and handholding then intercourse (she was called a cold fish growing up). It took her three years before she felt interested in sex with her boyfriend, James, who waited patiently. They are now married.

But regardless of the stigma, the number of identified asexuals is growing, if the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) and its some 80,000 registered users are any indication. In a 2012 piece by Rachel Hills at The Atlantic interviewing the site's founder, David Jay, he tells a common story among asexual identifiers—of a desire and drive for sex that never hit, while his peers became consumed, one by one, with the impulse.

Pretty interesting article, though the article still could still do a better job on educating people on asexualtiy 101 - it beats around the bush too much.

Thought those of you that participated in the last thread might find it interesting.

[brooklynite]

1. What people don't do in their bedroom is entirely up to them...

[Xipe Totec]

2. I support any lifestyle that reduces competition for the rest of us. nt

[TM99]

3. As a clinician and sexologist,

I am still very undecided about this phenomena.

I agree with much of this article stated as long ago as 2005 -

http://www.apositive.org/wordpress_backup/?page_id=222

Even the linked to AVEN clearly states that the science on this is hardly definitive.

This quote sums up my current thoughts on this topic -

In the final analysis, Marty Klein believes the flood of news reports in The New York Times., Salon.com, Toronto Star, Utne Reader points to another issue that isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

“The more important story here is how this is simply the latest example of a ‘trend’ that the media picks up, legitimizes, and disseminates on a regular basis,” Klein said. “We can expect to see an Oprah episode on it, and our patients will ask about it. One way our field could really help people is if we talked more about the phenomenon of sexual trend-creation that shapes public consciousness and public policy about sexuality.”

I observe a generation that is mildly obsessed with labeling themselves in as many ways as possible. This is supported by the internet culture of extreme social networking where the only real connections some individuals have with each other are through written persona descriptors. Entire support networks are virtual and not even physical. I also observe an obsession with what I would call the 'persecuted minority position'.

Combine this with 'privilege theory' and we observe rich, educated, predominantly young white males claiming to be a persecuted minority and suffering under religious privilege because they are atheists, and articles where 'asexuals' claim to be a more persecuted minority than homosexuals who have actually suffered physical violence in this country and murder & execution in others.

I don't claim full knowledge of the why's or wherefore's and I am always open to new research in my field, and there is a disconnect with reality that actually is quite fascinating to observe and study as it unfolds in cyberspace and in the reality TV based mass media.

[backscatter712]

4. Self-labeling is a tool.

People may identify as asexual, demisexual, grey-ace, aromantic, and so on, as a way of putting words to their feelings and experiences, finding people who feel the same way, and sharing with them. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nobody with a working brain is claiming that asexuals are more persecuted than gay people or transgender people, who have to deal with discrimination, violence, and demonization every single day. But asexual people do have to deal with invalidation and invisibility. Maybe asexuals don't have to face the open hostility that other members of the LGBTQ community face, but they do have to deal with hurtful shitheads.

[TM99]

5. Of course there is nothing inherrently wrong with that.

Human beings do it constantly. But it does not mean there is a basis in reality for all of these labels.

Labels can be used to create separation. A woman who self-identifies with a feminist world view may label a man whom she is in disagreement with as an 'MRA'. Is it 'real' or accurate? Equally a man who identifies as a 'gamer' may call himself a supporter of Gamergate and any woman who disagrees with him, he may label a 'radical feminist'. Is that 'real' or accurate as well?

The internet has increased our natural human propensity for labeling ourselves and others. Sometimes with our choice of labels we create our own isolation and invalidation. The problem is one of our own creation when it did not exist before.

There are biological realities to homosexuality and growing scientific research on the same with transgenderism. Through out human history cultures have tolerated, accepted, and not allowed at all for that sexual reality. For almost 35 years in the US medicine/psychiatry pathologized it. Psychology stopped doing so long before the rest of the US culture which is only now beginning to come around to more complete acceptance (with large fights and back-slides still existing).

Psychologists and researchers are exploring this phenomena, but currently there are many reasons besides an actual 'orientation' for someone to be asexual at any given time in their sexual history. So you disagree with me and what I have shared as someone actually in the field of psychology and sexology and open to exploring this, and in a roundabout way are labeling me a 'shithead'.

I think you are proving my point quite well.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. You were offered an explanation of self identification and countered with examples of lables being

imposed by others. Also no one said this is an 'actual orientation'. No one called you any names at all, much less 'shithead'.

[TM99]

14. I can always count on you Blue to jump in.

I offered both.

And yes, go to sites popping up and discussions on the APA forums and there is research and questions regarding whether this is an orientation or not.

No, not directly, but it could be inferred from the post in question.

[dilby]

6. I think self labeling is extremely important when it comes to sexuality in society.

Obviously people do not need to label themselves to better understand themselves, they do it so that society understands them. As an example I have a female friend who I hang out with every so often and she is a lesbian, nothing about her would have identified her as a lesbian to me other than when she told me. But by her telling me she is a lesbian and labeling herself I had a better understanding of who she is and never made the awkward mistake of asking her on a date.

[TM99]

7. I would not disagree at all with your example.

As I said, it can be a positive and a negative. It can be unused when it should be, and it can be overused when it might not need to be.

You also mention something I think is often overlooked. You describe her as a friend. You know each other as more than just virtual bits and bytes on a monitor. Friends share such intimacies as their sexual preferences, orientation, and identity.

You said one thing that I also found to be a bit sad. You said that it would have been an awkward mistake to ask her on a date. I disagree. Unless someone is being just an inappropriate buffoon, showing interest is hardly a mistake nor should it ever be awkward. I have had men over the years ask me out, and it did not bother either of us that I am not gay. I met my S.O. of going on a decade now in a lesbian bar with my younger sister. We made eye contact, struck up a pleasant conversation, and then I asked her out. She is bi-sexual, and we have been together ever since.

True acceptance of the normalcy of the full expression of human sexuality starts with us as individuals overcoming any shame, awkwardness, or weirdness about simply interacting in the world of attractions, friendships, and relationships without always having to have a label sheet in front of us to guide us through these interactions. That is one reason I speak out often against the negative consequences of the socially networked internet. It often takes us farther away from acceptance and just healthy normal interactions with people and substitutes this litany of written persona descriptors instead. These can often lead to the extremes of narcissism or at best just self-absorption and solipsism.

[riderinthestorm]

8. You don't think there are actually people who are asexual?

Or who aren't interested in sex?

[TM99]

12. Are there people who are not interested in sex?

Sure. Over twenty five years of practice, I have seen a minority of people who are this way. But the reasons may vary over a lifetime from medical causes, to psychological trauma, to personality disorders, etc., etc.

So at this point in time I think the science is still out on whether there is an actual sexual orientation on the continuum of human sexuality labelled 'asexual'.

[backscatter712]

15. Oh, I get it, anyone who claims to be asexual is sick or crazy.

*PLONK* Welcome to my ignore list.

[TM99]

16. You just proved my point.

You assume persecution where none was given.

The research is still out, even the sites that support asexuality mention that. Read my linked article elsewhere in this thread which by the way is from a support site for asexual-labeled individuals.

If asexual activity can and is related to other medical conditions and/or psychological issues, then yes, those need to be ruled out first. How can it be a distinct category or orientation if it can and is explained in the majority of instances by other causes or conditions? If it can't, then lets explore further. Asexuality as it is being discussed now is still a damned small minority of the population. It can be very difficult to study such a small number and draw much larger conclusions.

No my mind is not made up and I am open to further exploration. Yours is made up, and you react as if I have slighted you. I don't even know you or your unique circumstances. This is a general discussion about a broad topic.

But it is interesting to note that you think that abused people, individuals with personality disorders, etc, are 'crazy'. *PLONK* indeed.

[FLPanhandle]

9. In some ways, I'm envious of them

It's not easy being basically a slave to hormones when young, not to mention the energy and money and effort spent on getting laid.

It would have been nice to have not had sex as high on the priority list during HS, College, and young adulthood (not to say it wasn't fun!).

[dilby]

13. Should of done what I did when I was a young man.

Date older women, when I was 20 I was only dating women in their 30s and 40s, never had problems getting laid, took no effort and saved a ton of money. Plus older women were just so much more fun and full of great knowledge.

[snooper2]

11. that is fine...everyone else are horny rabbits LOL