This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.
Hey Professor Foxy,
How do you know if you're asexual? Is it something that you just know from the time you're in kindergarten, or is it something you realize later?
I had lots of crushes on boys until I was maybe 10 or 11 and nothing really after that (I'm almost 20 now, and a girl). In high school I had only three boyfriends, none of whom I was really attracted to. We kissed (like a peck) a few times but I was really not into it.
I find the idea of anybody touching me absolutely repulsive. The thought of sex makes me gag a bit. I masturbate sometimes but I'm not really into that, either. Like if you said, "don't ever touch yourself again!" I'd be like "ok, cool" and not miss it, you know? It comes more out of being bored or feeling like I should than actual desire.
I'm not into girls either, before you ask. My attraction to either sex is basically limited to "he's cute" or "she has a nice figure". In the same vein as "what a cute puppy" or "that's a nice flower."
Its really uncomfortable because my mum keeps harassing me to get a boyfriend, and I tried to explain to her that I had no interest and didn't want one. She has accused me multiple times of being a lesbian. (Yes, accused, not asked). I'm not one, though.
I've never been abused... hmm.. I'm trying to give you as many details as possible, here. I don't really know what else there is.
So does this sound asexual? Or low sex drive? Should I drive myself to the nearest convent? Or just suck it up and pretend I have interest in sex?
-Awkward
Hi Awkward -
Thanks for writing in. I believe asexuality exists. Sexuality is a continuum and asexuality is one side of that.
I do not think there is a test of asexuality; same as there is no test of gayness or bisexuality. I think, much like being queer, there is a feeling that exists inside and again, like being queer, it is a process to come to a place of acceptance and claim that identity.
When you are not the "norm" of heterosexuality, you may realize it at four or fifteen or fifty. When you realize is when you realize. There is no age minimum or maximum.
You may one day meet the man or woman with whom you feel sexual or you may not. Sexuality is fluid and it can change over time.
What I think makes asexuality a little more difficult is that many people still do not believe it exists. However, there is starting to be increased attention to people who are asexual. There are dating services for asexual people to date other asexual people. Sex is only one part of a relationship: many asexual people still need companionship and love and someone to share their lives with. The great thing about asexual people dating other asexual people is that it eliminates the pressure of sex and for some the pressure of physical intimacy.
I am sorry about your mother. I would find a line and stick to it. Maybe something along the lines of "I am not into dating right now" or "I am focused on my job, school, or career." If and when you are ready to explain how you feel, you can but until then take time to become comfortable with being asexual first.
I would encourage you to seek out other asexual people. Support is a lovely and necessary thing. In addition, you may find someone to build a life with or others to talk about being happily perpetually single. Here are a couple of web sites to get you started: Asexuality Meet up Groups and the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network. Community is important, especially when becoming comfortable with who you are.
Best,
Professor Foxy
If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ask Professor Foxy: Am I Asexual? What Does That Mean?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14159
I am glad to find asexuality mentioned here - I had never heard of it till an article on it appeared in New Scientist a while ago!
I explored the AVEN community myself a couple of years ago, and although I discovered that I am not quite asexual, I found the community there very helpful in giving me new ways of looking at sexuality.
I hope you find it helps too, Awkward.
This sounds pretty much like my story, except I have never been in a sexual/romantic relationship before. I do self identify as Asexual. I've pretty much have always known that there was something "different" about me.But I could not put a name on it until a year or so ago. I am also in the almost twenty area.
As for your questions: You may have a low sex drive and you may not. Asexuality is about not having sexual attraction for others.not always the cause. Some Asexuals enjoy sex, others are indifferent to it, and others are completely repulsed by the idea. Some have low sex drives, others have pretty high ones, it varies from person to person. You could go to the nearest convent if you wanted to, but that is not a requirement. :) You don't have to pretend you like sex, especially if the idea makes you very uncomfortable. The fact of matter is most people will assume that you are into it or will have an interest in it, and most of those people have no right to be in your beeswax anyway. Whether you want to pass as a sexual is your choice.
I agree with Professor Foxy, focus on getting to know yourself, and finding out information. Are you aromanic (not sexually/romantically interested),romantic (not sexually, but romantically interested) , GrayA, etc? That's one of the hard parts, finding a label, making your own label, or disregarding them all together. I highly recommend AVEN it is a wonderful site with awesome people.
Sorry about your mom. I'm lucky enough that most people just assume that I am a late bloomer. Try taking Professor Foxy's tips, they can work on those that just can't take a hint.
And yeah that was a novel. Hope it helped soemone though.
Peace out
So the first thing to do is go find a label so that you can be easily categorized by other people? Seems like an unnecessary step.
I would tell "awkward" that if she wants these labels great! If not, then she doesn't need one. So in this, I disagree with both you and foxy as I don't think one needs to label themselves in order to be comfortable with who they are... we apply labels so that others can be comfortable with us.
The author mentions "disregarding [labels] altogether."
Labels, however, can be very useful for self-identification purposes and handy shortcuts for using other people's soul-searching instead of having to do your own. This is especially useful for asexuality, because asexuality is simply *not talked about* to the extent that many asexual people wind up having to invent a large amount of the concepts surrounding it from scratch. And even once you have that, there are nuances and differences and variations of asexuality where simply knowing what the different labels are, even if you decide you don't identify with any of them, can save you *so* much trouble.
I started properly thinking of myself as "asexual" when I was, I think, eighteen or thereabouts (having come up with the term on my own; this happens depressingly often). However, it wasn't until I was twenty or twenty-one, after finding the online asexual community, that I realised I also needed to figure out my romantic identity - because it literally had not occurred to me that it was possible to have romantic desires without sexual ones and that these could be fulfilled. I'd always thought that boyfriend = having sex, having sex = something I do not want, ergo there will never be romantic relationships in my future - and, of course, I'd never realised that if I were still romantically interested I needn't be attracted to men. However, the asexual community had already done the footwork on developing the concepts - of romantic relationships completely separate from sex, of romantic *orientations*, of the variety of different lifestyles an asexual might consider... if you'd been waiting for me to come up with all of that on my own, we'd be here for a while.
Nobody is trying to force anyone into using labels if they don't want to. I do, however, think it is a very good idea for people who think they're asexual to take a look at what the labels *are* and what they entail, just to get an idea of the different varieties of asexuality and the way various people identify.
Maybe I should explain where I am coming from. I view labels as a way to identify one's self to one's self and to tell others how one wants to be thought of.In a perfect world they would not be necessary, but until they do come about might as well use them as you will. I don't view them as primarily for others use.
I tend to view things on a spectrum. I think most of the population tends to fall between two extremes, whether it be sexuality,gender, etc,and most people self identify as what they fall closer to. I have been raised to see people as people and to value thoughts and ideas over their appearance or the like, and think that the only time they are relevant are in academic discussion. The only problem is that in viewing that as irrelevant leads me to sometimes not be able to see some issues like racism or sexism . I always come back to " Why is (Blank) a problem or even relevant."Which is where my thoughts on labels come in. I will refer to you as YOU see fit,otherwise you are just a person, that is all. We label ourselves all the time, that is just a fact. Whether it is bad or good is debatable, but it is a fact.
I use the label Asexaul, the fact that there is a term for what I am feeling and that I am not alone came as a big relief to me. Often one has to know the rules to break them. Awkward seemed to want validation, that is what what Prof. Foxy, other posters,and I tried to do. Asexuality is not well known and the statistics say that only about 1% of the pop. is asexual. Like I said everyone has the right to label themselves or not label themselves as they wish. Sometimes it takes trying on different ones to reach a point where one can make that decision.
Hopefully that was a little clearer. This is my own opinion and I can only speak for myself.
Peace Out
Yikes, that could be misread. When I say irrelevant, I don't mean unimportant. I'm talking about conversations where some brings up (blank) and it has no place in the conversation, or people that tend to take appearances over ideas.Situations where they don't really have a place. While (blank) might be important to the person, it is not the most important thing about them and taking it as the most important thing can be seen as rude.
Bad advice in my opinion. Not saying this particular person isn't asexual, but there are other biological issues that could be at play here low hormones being chief among them. Since it is normal for the vast majority of the species, particularly at the age of this person, to want to engage in sexual activity and that a lot of that is hormonally driven, a medical exam would be in order for this individual prior to declaring they are asexual.
What this post really does is allow for the patient to self-diagnose and for the "doctor" to say: "If you say so." write a prescription and dismiss the patient without taking an exam. In the real world that's malpractice.
If the site wanted to educate the public about the existence of asexual individuals, there are better ways of doing so.
um, wow, sondjata. your post constructs being sexual not only as normal, but as normative. i don't think it's okay to pathologize people with low or no sex drives by telling someone who says they have no desire for sex that they should go check if there's something wrong with their hormones.
I agree with sonjdata that the letter writer should get checked out. It's not because lack of sexual desire is problematic in itself, but rather because lack of sexual desire can also be a warning sign for serious illnesses including hormone imbalances, tumors, diabetes, and trace mineral deficiencies.
Asexuality is as healthy and normal as any other orientation. However, not everyone who has a low sex drive is asexually oriented. The letter writer wrote to ask if she might be asexual. If she's not sure, she should learn as much about herself as she can. Introspection is part of that process of discovery and so is a medical checkup.
Would diabetes and tumours make me find sex repulsive?
Doubtful.
The problem with this comment is that it assumes 'Awkward" WANTS to be sexual. I agree that it might have been helpful for Prof. Foxy to mention some of this information and/or suggest the possibility of seeing a doctor, just to cover all bases, but to approach it from the POV of 'there must be biological issues' is just ignorant and unfair.
I think that in general it is far more likely that low sex drive is the result of a medical/hormonal/medication issue than not. I've had periods of low desire/sexual function that were due to medications, not inherent sexual orientation. The vast majority of people are sexual; it IS normal to be sexual.
I do not find it ignorant or unfair to suggest getting a doctor's take on this kind of thing. And yeah, someone might not be interested in being sexual without knowing if there's a medical issue, but if that person DOES have a medical issue that can be fixed and would be sexual if that were the case, they would be missing out on a LOT IMO.
As for the specific letter writer, I'd be more inclined to say that it isn't a medical issue given that the thought of sex makes her gag. It is, however, pretty bad advice not to mention the possibility of hormonal causes at all. The letter writer can and should decide whether or not she's interested in pursuing a medical exam. That doesn't make a suggestion to do that if she wants to biased or ignorant. It would be ignorant to say she MUST see a doctor because ALL lack of interest in sex is hormonal, but I don't think that's what sondjata is saying here.
I think it's equally incorrect to say ALL lack of interest is due to an asexual orientation. That's not quite what Prof. Foxy is saying here, but the lack of even a mention of possible hormonal causes makes her advice incomplete. The advice is perfectly sound for someone who isn't interested at all in a medical cause, but I'm not if that's true for the letter writer or not.
That was supposed to say, "I'm not sure if that's true for the letter writer or not."
but if that person DOES have a medical issue that can be fixed and would be sexual if that were the case, they would be missing out on a LOT IMO.
If you had a pill which would make me sexual, you could not make me take it if you paid me.
You like being sexual. A lot of people like being sexual. I like being *a*sexual. I don't think I'm missing out on anything. I'm also a mathematician, think higher mathematics is incredibly beautiful and amazing and tend to be sad that there are people who don't know this or can't see it. You will not, however, find me hounding non-mathematicians about how they must sit down with an algebra textbook now because they are really missing out on life because they don't know maths!!! This is because I know that people are different, what one person may find essential may be completely irrelevant to another person and in the end everyone has to figure out their life for themselves.
Funny how that works, isn't it.
I've got a low math drive. I can do it, but I have a hard time seeing the transcendent beauty of it. If you could give me a pill that would make me experience the thrills that you get from math, I'd pay just about anything for that.
Now, that's just my choice. Maybe there are confirmed a-numerates out there who feel that being bored by math is an important part of who they are. Nobody should make them feel bad about wanting to stay the way they are.
Having a low math drive doesn't make you a worse person. But sometimes a low math drive is a sign of another problem. You might want to fix that problem for its own sake, regardless of how that might affect your attitude towards math. For example, bad grades in math might be a sign of a learning disability or ADD. If I were struggling in math, I'd want to get tested for those things.
The argument I'm hearing is that asexuals should be left alone to be who they are. Agreed 100%. That's true of all orientations. If Awkward is sexual and a medical condition is preventing her from being herself, then that's just as sad as if she's asexual and people want to pathologize her.
As Prof. Foxy says, only Awkward can make these decisions. She gets to decide who she really is and what the good life looks like for her. She needs as much information as possible, including a medical checkup.
I'm uncomfortable with the statement "The vast majority of people are sexual; it IS normal to be sexual." Would you say the same thing in regards to hetero/homo sexuality (the vast majority of people are heterosexual; it IS normal to be heterosexual)? I hope not, and I hope that example shows that defining a "normal" and insisting that people conform to the "vast majority" is problematic. There's a wide range of sexuality out there, a great deal of which ought to be accepted and celebrated.
I think what some of the previous commenters mean is that it is statistically much more likely that someone is sexual over asexual, and so the possibility that there is some medical reason hampering sexuality should be explored before declaring that the person is asexual.
It is statistically more likely that any given person is sexual than asexual, much the same that it's statistically more likely that any given person is straight than gay. But given the information we already have about this person (no past interest in sex, etc.) what makes you think it's statistically more likely she's a hormonally imbalanced sexual than an asexual? Where are your numbers on this?
I'm actually very uncomfortable with equating statistical majority with "normal." A statistical majority is just that- a larger numerical amount. "Normal" has an implicit value judgment- normal means ok, correct, not-weird, good, better, right. If you don't fall into the "normal" category, then you're bad, weird, sick. Unless you clarify yourself very carefully, "normal" will always carry connotations of being better than something else. Saying there are fewer asexuals in the world than there are sexual people is fine. Saying sexual people are normal, and therefore asexuals are not normal or abnormal, is really not ok.
I misread notexactlybutch's comment when I wrote this, sorry. I thought I was disagreeing with you, but apparently I was agreeing with your disagreement with Kathleen6674.
To clarify, I did not attach a judgment value of "normal" to "statistically more likely". Since it is statically more likely that someone is sexual and there is something hampering their sexuality, that possibility should be explored before determining if someone is sexual or asexual.
I think people misuse the word "normal" on issues like this a lot.
Normal, in its definition, has nothing to do with what is "common". Normal refers to something that happens "naturally", and asexuality, while it may be somewhat uncommon, is still very normal.
I'd advise people to be wary of this because abnormality does not mean the same as uncommon, which is what I would believe you are trying to say. You are in fact saying asexuality is unnatural, which to my knowledge is not in any way proven.
Excellent point.
It's not about whether Awkward wants to be sexual. Everyone wants to avoid diabetes, depression, pituitary cancer, and the other medical conditions that mimic asexuality.
Asexuality is unusual and some of those potential underlying conditions are pretty common--especially diabetes and depression.
Sex drive is like height. There's a huge amount of variation among healthy, normal people. You can be a lot shorter or a lot taller than average and be just as healthy and "normal" as someone of average height.
On the other hand, if your height is off the charts in one director or the other, you should see a doctor.
There's nothing wrong with being short or tall, BUT unusual height is SOMETIMES a sign of an underlying medical condition like a pituitary tumor or a growth hormone deficiency.
There's a difference between saying that "A is bad." vs. "Neutral thing A might be a sign of bad thing B, so if you see A, check for B."
Just because this person isn't a sexual person doesn't mean that there's something wrong with her. If she's happy how she is, then why should she get change anything? I'm very happy with my lack of a sex drive, and I'm much happier when I'm not dating anyone than when I am. I would prefer not to get my "problem" "corrected" just so I can be considered normal.
Now if she's unhappy with this then that's different, but she seemed more confused than unhappy in her post.
This was my thinking...if everything in her life is going fine and she's healthy I don't see why she should see a doctor just because she has no interest in sex.
Wowza, yeah, let's stop equating the "normal" with the "natural." Just because the vast majority of people are sexual doesn't mean that it is the only natural state of sexuality. That's the same logic people use to dismiss homosexuality and bisxuality. And, since when do people need a doctor's note to justify their sexual identity? You don't have to sufficiently "prove" your identity to everyone in order for it to be true.
everyone has different sex drives, it's ok.
the only think that i would advice would be to
remain open to the possibility that this might change in the future. You might, in fact, become a more sexual being and it would suck if you are mentally stuck in an "asexual" category.
So, just go with it, but don't get stuck! :)
There might also be psychological causes for this, which is the likeliest possibility, in my opinion.
I think saying "Oh, there's nothing wrong with you, it happens when ot happens. Or if it doesn't, that's also fine" is very dismissive. This position also fails to recognize sexuality as part of human physiology, which is precisely what it is. 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.
I find this post to be extremely ignorant. If someone doesn't eat or sleep, then they're going to have a crap load of health problems and they will eventually die. Does the same thing happen if someone doesn't have sex? Of course not.
I've chosen to avoid sex because being emotionally attached to people (whether it's just for sex or if it's a romantic relationship) just makes my life more problematic. I'm much happier when I remain single and celibate. I don't even have a sex drive anymore, but I'm happier than when I did. Why is this such a bad thing?
If a person is happy and she or he doesn't have sex, then that's fine. If a person is happy but has an eating disorder, then that's different. Comparing the two is just plain ignorant.
With that being said, I'm VERY pro-sex.. I just choose not to have it.
First of all, having sex and being emotionally attached are extremely different things that don't need to be connected in any way.
Second, I do believe that a lack of healthy sex life causes health problems. The medical tradition in my culture fully recognizes this as well.
"First of all, having sex and being emotionally attached are extremely different things that don't need to be connected in any way."
And my life is much easier when I'm not involved with either of these things.
I doubt it causes serious health problems. I'm just as healthy now as I was when I did have a sex life. The only difference is that, emotionally, I feel better. I'm happier.
"I do believe that a lack of healthy sex life causes health problems. The medical tradition in my culture fully recognizes this as well."
Can you prove this? What about sexual people who choose not to have sex? Are their lives going to be less healthy or productive? I really don't like your method of "concern for the person's health". It's reminiscent to fat-shaming.
I'm not personally concerned for anybody, I was just responding to a comment.
As feminists, I think we can't afford to forget that we live in a Puritanical society that still stigmatizes female sexual freedom. I believe it would be helpful to analyze how the accepted vision of female sexuality helps to create asexuality instead of proposing to form an identity group around it.
So you're saying this person should force themselves to be sexual just to stick it to the patriarchy?
I'd hope that 'female sexual freedom' includes the freedom to not do it, too.
"I'd hope that 'female sexual freedom' includes the freedom to not do it, too."
-In my personal opinion, this is akin to saying that a woman has a right to starve herself to death. Yes, she does, but it also makes sense to talk about the societal pressures that force people into anorexia. Alternatively, we could suggest that anorexic people form communities around this part of their identity but I believe it would be dismissive of a real existing problem.
You do realise you are comparing not having sex (which is pretty much physiologically harmless) to, er, killing yourself?
"You do realise you are comparing not having sex (which is pretty much physiologically harmless) to, er, killing yourself?"
And, for people who can't attract willing sex partners, comparing not having sex to not raping...
As a former/recovering anorexic I find it VERY offensive that you are attempting to compare anorexia to being asexual. They're absolutely nothing alike. I choose not to have sex BECAUSE I'm confident in myself. My lack of a sex drive is actually making me happy. Anorexia is very much the opposite. I was killing myself, and I knew it. I wasn't confident at all, what I really wanted was to disappear into thin air. My entire life was centered around how many ounces or pounds that I had gained or lost that day.
"Alternatively, we could suggest that anorexic people form communities around this part of their identity.."
They do. They're called pro-ana or pro-mia websites, and they're nothing like asexual communities. The pro-ana/mia communities are completely centered around negative reinforcement. They tell you to snap a rubber band against your wrist every time you consider eating. They tell you that you should put up a picture of your favorite model to motivate you to destroy your body just so you can be like the photoshopped image. They tell you to look at yourself naked in the mirror if you're considering eating, because when you see your body you'll see that you don't deserve to be eating.
Asexual communities are much more positive (obviously). They're trying to help people who are confused about their sexual identity. They aren't telling people that they should "starve" themselves from sex. They aren't trying to reinforce negative body images or negative feelings about sex. They're trying to help people.
How the HELL can you compare anorexia to asexuality? Not only is this offensive to me, as a recovering anorexic, but it is probably offensive to asexuals as well. You sound like some of the conservative bigots who call homosexuality a disease.
I agree. Though I am not asexual, I am someone recovered from an ED, and I find this highly offensive as well.
EATING DISORDER! I had to sit here for about five minutes, wondering how a poster with the name Kate could suffer from ED.
hahahah! Wow, that comment made my day!
"I'd hope that 'female sexual freedom' includes the freedom to not do it, too."
Right on!
If everyone's supposed to have sex, and someone never wants to have sex, then that person would need to have sex when she or he doesn't want to in order to obey that rule.
IRL, the right to say no to sex is way more important than the benefits of sex for people who want it. No means no, and that's true even if someone wants to say no to sex her or his whole life.
Perhaps you are stigmatizing sexual freedom by telling her that asexuality is almost inevitably a psychological disorder?
First you say that in your opinion it is probably psychological. This begs the question are you a psychologist, or have you done research in this field? If you are a psychologist, what are you doing diagnosing someone on the internet? Then you say it is a known issue by the medical tradition in your culture, but don't supply any references when asked.
Finally, you turn to saying what we should do and believe as feminists. This feels like not just dodging the previous question about evidence for this medical concern for a sex life (which, as feminists, don't we have concerns about medical traditions and their codifying of women's behaviour, especially sexual?), but poisoning the well against disagreeing with you, because of the implication that to disagree with you is to be a bad feminist and a supporter of a puritanical society.
As with most traits in humans interest in sex appears to follow a population distribution with most people in the middle having a similar interest in sex, and at the extremes much smaller populations who have by degrees either greater or less interest in sex.
If the original poster is frustrated and wants to explore ways to increase their interest in sex, then by all means they should pursue psychological and physiological intervention. If they don't, however, then I think suggesting seeking out similar-minded people is a good one. It's obvious from this thread that our culture tends to tell them they are wrong, and when that is the case it is good to have people they can talk with to share their common experience.
"This begs the question are you a psychologist, or have you done research in this field? If you are a psychologist, what are you doing diagnosing someone on the internet?"
-Is everybody who suggested hormonal treatment and biological causes is a doctor? If not, then what are they doing diagnosing people on the Internet?
"Then you say it is a known issue by the medical tradition in your culture, but don't supply any references when asked."
-The entire psychoanalytical tradition is dedicateed to problems of human sexuality.
"poisoning the well against disagreeing with you, because of the implication that to disagree with you is to be a bad feminist "
-I have just been accused of "fat-shaming" within this very discussion (why is still a mystery to me) and you accuse ME of "poisoining the well"?
"suggesting seeking out similar-minded people is a good one"
-Talking about "similar-minded" people in this context sounds wrong to me. It's as if our sexuality was a matter of what we believe or of a personal choice.
First off, I want to apologize if I am seeming confrontational. It is easy for tone to come across harsher than intended, and I am genuinely interested in discussion.
I am pointing out issues I see with your argument, though, because it is unfair to start with a premise and then change your criteria as you go on. Also, I don't mean 'poisoning the well' as a slight, I mean it as the logical fallacy, in that when you stated "As feminists" it implied, to me, a position that suggests dissenting opinions are something feminists would not believe (and thus making a roundabout ad hominem/bad feminist attack).
I don't feel you responded to the points I raised. I can't address what other people have said in comments to you, but to say 'well people are doing this thing that is similar to what I just did' doesn't have any bearing on whether what you did was relevant or true. As far as the primary role of sex in psychoanalytical tradition, perhaps in certain fields of psychology (i.e. Freud) but that opens a number of debates to the validity of that point, and it doesn't address the discussion of asexuality.
"It's as if our sexuality was a matter of what we believe or of a personal choice."
Can't it be, though? Is it up to us to decide that for others? Making our own choices about our sexuality and our bodies is a big part of what feminism is to me.
If there are clear indicators of asexuality linking to being psychologically or physiologically unwell (like a high instance of depression among the asexual, etc., or even large number asexuals reporting distress at their situation) then I would agree it probably needs a greater degree of medical intervention. Just take the position that it must be harmful because it is alien to our experience of sexuality concerns me a great deal, and feels a lot like normalizing one experience over another, and policing women's choices about their bodies.
Like hell we live in Puritanical society. That's like saying we live in an abstinent culture.
And yeah you are shaming it because you automatically assume something must be wrong and claim she won't be healthy. On what guidelines? On whose standards? Like everyone else has said, it would be different if she wanted to be sexual and found she couldn't, but she's perfectly happy without being sexual and that's fine.
I should probably stop responding to posts because I am just getting angrier and angrier, but.
I believe it would be helpful to analyze how the accepted vision of female sexuality helps to create asexuality instead of proposing to form an identity group around it.
You do realise that this is not. Your. Decision? It is not The Feminist Movement sitting down and voting about whether they should allow asexuality as an identity. It is, and was, a bunch of people who feel alienated by their lack of desire for sex coming together and going "hey, let's work through this stuff together!" You, as an outsider, as a sexual person, do not get to come in and go "well, *I* have to analyse why you all feel this way before I will allow you to form this group". It is not your place to allow or disallow anything. It is especially not your place to decide whether my identity is valid or not depending on whether you think it is sufficiently anti-patriarchical!
Unless "health problems" mean "about to drop dead next Thursday", I'll take the potential hypothetical citation needed health problems over being raped on a regular basis, thank you very much.
I don't understand what rape has to do with this discussion at all. I find your comment incredibly insensitive and rude. I have a lot of issues in my sex life with being intimate and suddenly picturing my rapist and it's something I struggle with often. So I really do not appreciate you equating having sex to being raped.
I am just confused by your comment, it seems so out of place.
My point was that as an asexual, as a *repulsed* asexual, I cannot see how I'd ever be able to enjoy sex, or why on earth I'd ever consent in the first place since the thought of being touched that way by another person is really rather sickening. As a result, if I had to have sex regularly for my health - as the comment seemed to suggest - that would probably wind up being something close to rape. I'm honestly sorry if I hurt you or you felt I trivialised your experiences, I didn't mean to make it sound as if I was applying that to anyone other than myself.
"My point was that as an asexual, as a *repulsed* asexual, I cannot see how I'd ever be able to enjoy sex, or why on earth I'd ever consent in the first place since the thought of being touched that way by another person is really rather sickening. As a result, if I had to have sex regularly for my health - as the comment seemed to suggest - that would probably wind up being something close to rape."
Yeah, that's the impression I got from your comment too - if sex was mandatory for everyone at some point in her or his life, then some people would be raped since not everyone wants it at some point in her or his life.
"Second, I do believe that a lack of healthy sex life causes health problems. The medical tradition in my culture fully recognizes this as well."
Lemme guess, your culture (whichever one it is) also recognizes forced heterosexual marriage as solving so-called "health problems" for guys who can't get consenting women or girls...
Not having sex means you have health problems? Well, OK. I'll get right on that sex life. Maybe I'll go pick one up at the goddamn store. Fucking hell.
I agree, it is not proven that sex is in any way necessary for a healthy lifestyle. Eating, however, is. Or, more accurately, the absence of sex in a person's life has never be proven to be harmful, while starvation has.
In a fair response to Clarissa, I would have to agree that it should at least be mentioned that there is a possibility that something could be physically or emotionally "wrong" with the OP, such as a hormone imbalance. Of course, whether of not these conditions would be considered as something wrong would be completely up the her.
"I think saying 'Oh, there's nothing wrong with you, it happens when ot happens. Or if it doesn't, that's also fine' is very dismissive. This position also fails to recognize sexuality as part of human physiology, which is precisely what it is. 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."
If sex was just as necessary to human physiology as eating is, then having sex with someone against her or his will when one can't get anyone to consent would be just as justified as stealing food to eat when one can't get food legally.
Wait, wait, wait, wait ...are you saying the Pope is unhealthy because he doesn't have sex? Dude may look like a penguine, he may be anti-choice, but I guanrantee you, the least of his problems is due to a lack of sex.
Let's stop pretending that sexual freedom means the freedom to have sex. It's the freedom to do with one body as one likes - to include NOT having sex.
Forcing "sexual freedom" on others for their own sake, if not rape, is at the very least coersive.
Yes, yes, this, a thousand times, YES.
I fall into this category except my situation is complicated with marriage. I've had sex 4-5 times when I was around 18/19 but haven't had any since (I'm 27).
My SOP has been my only sexual partner and knew the situation when we got married. It's not that I don't get turned on, just that when it really gets down to business, I start to feel kind of disgusted and weird.
It think it shouldn't really matter as long as both members of a relationship agree and are accepting. I think there are cases where it is pathological and it might be worth mentioning it.
I agree that she should have her hormones checked, but for different reasons. Hormones tend to fulfill multiple functions in the body, so if her sex drive is lacking because of abnormal hormone levels, it's likely other body functions or organ systems are being affected. For example, her thyroid could be out of whack.
"I agree that she should have her hormones checked, but for different reasons. Hormones tend to fulfill multiple functions in the body, so if her sex drive is lacking because of abnormal hormone levels, it's likely other body functions or organ systems are being affected. For example, her thyroid could be out of whack."
See, now this is a respectful way to bring up the option of going to a doctor. You're not complaining about the letter writer's asexuality here, you're just mentioning the fact that in some cases a lurking variable causes both a low sex drive and a health problem so she might want to see if that's the situation for herself (just in case), and you're not suggesting that she should stop being asexual even if she does have a health problem at the same time.
I just remembered that I should have mentioned something else here.
Personally, I get my period every 7-8 weeks when I'm not on the Pill, and I like it that way. At the same time, my doctor said I should get it checked out because it could be the symptom of a problem. I did get it checked out, I discovered that I have poly-cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) and that my PCOS was a lurking variable behind both my stubborn body hair (I thought it was only from my ethnicity but it's from PCOS too) and my abnormally long menstrual cycle. I'm now treating myself PCOS...
...in a way that lets me keep the 7-8 week cycle I enjoy (BTW, the trick for me is going on the Pill and taking 2 packs of active pills before the week of sugar pills instead of taking every pack's week of sugar pills). Meanwhile, I'm sure some other women and girls have abnormally long cycles like mine without PCOS, because not everyone has the same cycle.
So, 'you might want to get that checked out...' doesn't always have to come with the '...because nobody should have that!!!' additude some jerks have about physical differences.
by the way,
http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2009/06/asexual-faqs-pamphlet-by-aanz.html
I just saw this!
"AANZ offers us a brochure answering frequently asked questions about asexuality. What is it, why does it matter, and how can you get involved in coming out or being an ally."
"So you're saying this person should force themselves to be sexual just to stick it to the patriarchy?"
-If you look at what I said before, you will notice that my suggestions include looking at psychological and societal reasons of asexuality.
I think I might be asexual. Some asexual people are completely ok with their orientation, but it's a struggle for me because I DO want to be sexual. I don't think I was born this way-- I think antidepressants have permanently fucked up my brain chemistry. Does anyone else have this problem?
When I was on Lexapro, my libido took a huge nose dive. Then I switched to Nortriptyline (it works on dopamine rather than serotonin) and it came back full force, possibly even enhanced. If you're still taking antidepressants, it's possible that switching to a different brand or even a different type of drug could help.
I've never been highly sexual, but being on anti-depressants has pretty much killed what desire I had. In my case, I really don't care, and it's probably better this way. If it bothers you, though, you should bring it up with your prescribing physician.
Anti-depressants can do that, as can other medications.
If you're unhappy with your sex drive, talk to your doctor about switching meds and getting yourself checked out. There's a chance you might be genuinely asexual, but there's also a chance you're not, particularly if you don't think you were born that way.
Absolutely. When I was on Risperdal aka Risperidone, I completely lost my sex drive. There were other side-effects like tremors/twitches and massive weight gain. I don't recall the sexual side effects bothering me much, but the drug deadened my feelings about most things so that might be why. In any case, it too me a few months even after I got off the drug to feel close to how I was before I started taking it.
You know, I was thinking of making a community post on asexuality as a queer identity, or possibly some of the ways I feel asexuality gets marginalised and ignored in the feminist movement. I suspect now that this was far too complicated, and I should be starting with the basics: Asex 101, or how to have a discussion about asexuality and not be really damn rude. Featured points, among others, would be not accusing complete strangers of having psychological issues or telling them they're sick and need to get checked out by the doctor simply because they don't want to have sex. It is derailing and rather insulting and *really* not new - trust me, anyone thinking they're asexual will have heard all of this *plenty* of times before. You are not adding anything to the conversation.
Now, to the actual OP: It's really something you have to know for yourself, but what you said sounds quite asexual to me (and to be honest, even if it's "just" low sex drive the two overlap enough that the asexual identity may still be really helpful to you; last I checked, this was what "grey-a" was all about.) I'm asexual too, as you may have gathered from the angry rant above :) Personally, I sort of think I've half always known and half finally figured it out around eighteen or thereabouts; when people told me about the sex thing, I thought it was really rather disgusting and felt sure that *I* would never be interested in doing such an absurd thing (and felt quietly vindicated over the next few years when, just as expected, no sexual desires surfaced). All the same, I got into a rather unfortunate situation when I was eighteen because somehow in the back of my mind I'd still expected that sexual desires would pop up - not because it felt natural or I wanted them to, but because that was just how I'd been told the world worked.
Speaking of which, regarding pretending to like sex: if you're talking about going with the flow when friends talk about it and staying in the asexual closet, that's quite understandable and still, to an extent, what I'm doing now (it's difficult to be out when being out tends to involve you having to explain all the concepts involved from scratch and then have people decide you're a lesbian or psychologically traumatised after all). If you mean actually having sex... you really have to know what's right for yourself, but this can be rather dangerous. Fact is that despite all the "don't knock it till you've tried it" comments we tend to get, if you actually want to have sex you'll probably have a good idea of that before you do it - and similarly, if you think of sex as repulsive *that* isn't likely to be completely inaccurate when it comes to the actual act itself, and if you feel that way trying to force yourself to go through with sexual acts for the sake of seeming normal is not likely to go anywhere good. (Why, yes, I am speaking from personal experience.)
My main advice to you would be: Check out AVEN, talk with the people there and think about what you want and you feel. Don't put too much stock in people who want to tell you they know what's "wrong" with you - you know your own psyche better than them, after all, and there's a large amount of ignorance surrounding asexuality. If you're asexual, great! If not, you've still learned something useful. Of course yadda yadda late bloomer yadda yadda even if you feel asexual now that doesn't mean you might not develop sexual feelings later on yadda, but honestly? The future can take care of itself, what matters is what you are *now*. And, finally, be true to yourself and don't let yourself get pressured into doing anything you don't want to do.
I'm still learning about asexuality, and I've really appreciated your comments on this thread. If you ever decide to write a full post about the topic I'd be very interested, but given the level of comments happening here your decision to revert to 101 makes total sense.
Thank you, I'm really glad someone is appreciating what I have to say. :) To be honest, I'm incredibly disappointed in the Feministing community at the moment. I'd made comments about being asexual here and there, even called out some people about generalising a la "everyone wants to have sex" and had so far always gotten a positive response. I didn't quite think of Feministing as an asexual safe space (too many of the "everyone wants to have sex" type comments), but I did think it was relatively friendly to our little corner of alternate sexualities. The comments to this post have shown how wrong that was very quickly and that is actually really, really upsetting.
It's actually a bit frightening - the lack of respect that some people have for each other, and each others' identity, has been making me sad too.
I've already written a community post on it, I don't know how it can be fixed, or how I can help.
But! Write your post. I have never really heard a personal story of asexuality (except from a friend), and I think it would be as enlightening as your comments here.
I agree that a lot of the comments on here have been very insensitive and inappropriate. Sadly I think this seems to be a theme of the comment threads for the Prof Foxy columns. I feel like people tend to forget that there are real people behind these questions who are seeking thoughtful advice, not vicious judgments.
I want to echo SociologicalMe's appreciation for your comments on this thread. I know how frustrating it is to have to constantly go back to Info 101 on a subject, and I think it shows a great deal of patience on your part to explain these points to people again. Being asexual is not my experience, but I am glad for the opportunity to understand it better by hearing the lived experience of asexual people.
I apologize if my comment was among those that offended you. I wasn't trying to say that asexuality always indicates a hormone imbalance. Instead, I meant that hormone imbalances can decrease or eliminate the libido, and if that is Awkward's case, it is worthwhile to consult a doctor because hormones affect more than just the sex drive. In other words, I wasn't trying to say "go get your libido fixed," but rather "go make sure your thyroid isn't being eaten away by your own immune cells" (or something). From Awkward's tone, I assumed she was just starting to thinking about asexuality, and probably hadn't explored all the possible explanations for how she feels. I would have made the same comment to someone who felt compelled to have sex all the time.
I do understand how this view could be offensive, and I apologize. I'm just coming from the viewpoint of a biologist.
It's okay - I can see the point behind comments like that. After all, sex drive is affected by hormones and the like, so it's a thought that's understandable. There are just a few issues I have.
I mean, is it possible for someone to have a dangerous hormone imbalance with no other symptoms than that of low or no sex drive? You said in your comment that a hormone imbalance would affect other organs too, so we should be seeing symptoms from those as well. I can't help but feel dubious that lack of sex drive on its own could be a sign of a condition that might severely affect my health or kill me. I'm perfectly happy to keep an eye out to see if any further symptoms pop up, but I have to doubt that I could, you know, drop dead tomorrow and have the autopsy reveal that it was caused by a mysterious ailment, the only symptom of which was a lack of sexual desire (and I have *never* wanted sex and can see signs of asexuality in myself as far back as I can remember, so this really isn't a recent development).
If it's *not* deadly or dangerous, then shouldn't it be the person's choice? A lot of the "hormone imbalance" talk relies on the assumption that if we can make an asexual person sexual this is a Good Thing, but as I mentioned further above - if you had the pill that would make me sexual, I would not take it if you paid me (barring the dropping-dead-next-Thursday-otherwise complications mentioned above). I like being asexual. Even if my hormones were imbalanced, if I'm not having any other problems because of them they can stay that way.
Finally, some asexuals have got themselves checked out and as far as I know there's no real difference on average between asexuals and sexuals as hormones go. It's possible that this might be the case for some people, but it looks as if it's certainly not true for most asexuals.
In general, "but what if it's biological?", along with "but what if it's psychological?" and "but what if you're autistic?" (the ultimate non-sequitur!) tend to sidetrack the conversation and delegitimise asexuality as an identity by focussing on how it is caused and whether it can be cured - completely ignoring along the way whether asexual people want to be "cured" in the first place, which many of us don't - and how it fits into the world as a sexual orientation. I can understand why people ask it out of real concern, but it's still rather frustrating to hear over and over again.
"It's okay - I can see the point behind comments like that. After all, sex drive is affected by hormones and the like, so it's a thought that's understandable. There are just a few issues I have.
"I mean, is it possible for someone to have a dangerous hormone imbalance with no other symptoms than that of low or no sex drive?"
Good question. Meanwhile, for all I know, the letter writer does have other symptoms and didn't mention them in the letter because she was discussing her asexuality instead of her physical health.
is it possible for someone to have a dangerous hormone imbalance with no other symptoms than that of low or no sex drive?
I think if the person is young, like Awkward, it is possible. People with Graves' Disease, for example, rarely show symptoms before their twenties, because the thyroid tissue is destroyed gradually. Although it's not a life-threatening disease, it does require hormono-blockers or destruction/removal of the thyroid. In an older person though, I agree - you're likely to see other symptoms.
If it's *not* deadly or dangerous, then shouldn't it be the person's choice?
Of course. At one point I was disinterested in sex because of the antidepressants I was taking, and I felt no desire to remedy my libido. It definitely makes sense to me why someone who has never had a sex drive would feel no need to "remedy" their libido.
In general, "but what if it's biological?", along with "but what if it's psychological?" and "but what if you're autistic?" (the ultimate non-sequitur!) tend to sidetrack the conversation and delegitimise asexuality as an identity...I can understand why people ask it out of real concern, but it's still rather frustrating to hear over and over again.
Y'know, I've been mulling over this thread, and thinking about how my mom has showed no interest in sex (outside of occasionally reading romance novels) for the past decade, and comparing asexuality identity issues to trans identity issues.... and in retrospect, I see why comments like mine are disrespectful. I have no idea if my train of thought in this paragraph make sense, but basically what I'm saying is: Damn, hindsight is a bitch. I hadn't thought about how annoying it must be for asexuals to constantly be berated about psychology/biology. Thank you for politely opening my eyes.
It should always be the person's choice. But you need the facts in order to make an informed choice.
Let's say Awkward found out that her low libido was linked to a hormone imbalance, then she would have to make an informed choice about whether the benefits of treating the hormone imbalance outweighed the costs (i.e., possibly acquiring a sex drive she didn't want).
Being asexual is just fine and nobody should pressure Awkward to "fix" her libido if she doesn't think it needs fixing. However, Awkward says she isn't sure whether she's asexual. It's not something she's always known about herself, the way some people do. She says she used to have crushes on boys when she was 10 or 11, but not anymore.
There's probably nothing wrong with her. But if she has hypothyroidism or a pituitary tumor or diabetes, she needs to know about it.
Agreed. I'd be really interested in a 101 post with some links. I plan on checking out AVEN later. I'm not trying to demand a 101 post, just letting you know that people would be interested if you're patient enought to write one. I'd never even heard of asexuality before reading Feministing, and even then I kind of stuffed the idea in the back of my mind for a couple of years, so this post was a real wake-up call for me.
101 posts on feministing are getting really old. How hard is it to treat people with respect, really?
It's not hard to treat people with respect, but unfortunately, a lot of times people forget that. I'm sorry that you've had to suffer some of the responses on this thread.
I've refrained on commenting on the main topic at hand because outside of its existence, I don't know a whole lot about asexuality. While I could never be an "expert" on it since it is not my orientation, I would like to rid myself of my ignorance surrounding it.
I think some of the comments that have been out of line have come out of well intentioned ignorance. I think many people likely THOUGHT they were being as respectful as possible even if they weren't. A 101 post, or even just a handful of good links on the topic, would be really helpful. Of course, anyone could have headed over to any one of the links Foxy provided to get them started. Though from what I can tell, AVEN doesn't have any answers about possible underlying medical issues, which is where a lot of the offending comments have come from. I understand though, that so many comments in this vein make it sound like everyone is making an attempt to "fix" your "problem."
Again, sorry there were so many out of line comments.
Given the way Feministing commenters have derailed past discussions of transgender issues, I am completely unsurprised by the unfortunate responses seen on a thread about asexuality. It seems that every time you present Feministing commenters with a way of being in the world that differs from the norm, there is always an assortment of clueless people available to make ignorant, negative proclamations about the topic at hand.
I'm sorry you had to endure the witless remarks we've seen on this thread, Zailin.
A note to those who feel the need to pathologize someone's experience of gender or sexuality just because it is different from yours: please consider how privilege inevitably leads people into saying stupid, rude things that hurt marginalized people.
I'll add my thank you as well. I'm starting to explain my Asexuality to people, and I'm running into the typical responses. I think a Asexuality 101 is a a great idea,and I would defiantly check it out and recommend it to people.
Thank you. :)
Zailyn, I think a post on the place and treatment of asexuality in queer and feminist discourses and communities would be so awesome. I hate that it seems like every topic on feministing that doesn't deal with heterosexual cis white women requires a 101 post or 20.
I think it's possible that there are people who are actually asexual and that everyone is different. My question in this case is whether a 20 year old should decide that she is asexual without first talking to a physician and/or therapist first. It could be a symptom of a physical disorder or hormonal imbalance. It could easily be a symptom of depression. It could be physical, psychological or some combo of both factors. It's also perfectly normal to have some level of sexual confusion at that age and she doesn't have to feel pressured to label herself just yet.
When I was twenty I was still busy figuring out who I was. I didn't know if I was straight or possibly bisexual, so I experimented a bit and kissed a few women. In the long run, it turns out I'm just open and curious. I'm not 100% straight, but I'm not exactly bisexual or lesbian given that I have not had a sexual experience with a woman and am primarily attracted to men. Is it possible that I will someday meet the right woman? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not actively seeking to date women or have a sexual encounter with another woman. I'm not in it to be trendy- I genuinely enjoy the thought of being with another woman. However, since I prefer men, it's really ok if I never have a lesbian experience. It's just one of those fun things I like to occasionally fantasize about, but am not exactly sure if I actually want it to happen in real life. The point I'm trying to make is that undecided is ok too. Society is way too hung up on labels anyway.
This could also be inexperience. She may not know what she is missing if she hasn't found the right person. Maybe she needs to be in a committed relationship and deeply in love in order to be sexual. Another possibility is that she may be a late bloomer. I just think that she shouldn't give up on herself, because she is so young. Sexuality and intimacy are important parts of adult life in my book. She should at least try to figure out if there is something else that she needs to discover about herself.
I would feel differently if this was a woman in her thirties or forties who had already given it a fair shot and then said, hey, this just isn't for me. I think it's more than ok if she really is asexual. The issue is that she still has so much time to date and experiment without pressuring herself to be bi, straight, lesbian or asexual. It's too early in life for her to just slap a label on it and call herself asexual. No need to give up on it for good just yet, because she could be prematurely cheating herself out of a lot of wonderful experiences.
You seem to be saying a lot of things to the OP as an asexual that no one in a feminist community would ever say to a gay man or lesbian. "C'mon, you just need to TRY straight sex, you might like it! You don't know what you're missing!" I think what several people in this thread are trying to say is that being asexual is *not* "cheating herself out of a lot of wonderful experiences," and that this kind of pressure from others is a fairly serious source of unhappiness for asexuals.
"You seem to be saying a lot of things to the OP as an asexual that no one in a feminist community would ever say to a gay man or lesbian. 'C'mon, you just need to TRY straight sex, you might like it! You don't know what you're missing!'..."
Exactly!
I wish we still had a dislike button.
She shouldn't have to "experiment" or "give it a fair shot" if it's something she's not interested in and finds repulsive. And I think it's offensive to say someone is giving up on themself if they choose not to try having sex.
There's nothing wrong with going to the doctor to make sure everything is fine. Unlike being homosexual or bisexual, asexuality CAN (not always is, but CAN) be a symptom to a physical or mental disorder you don't know you have and could never detect on your own.
From my own anecdotal evidence...I had several friends who were asexual. It turned out that what was their identity was also a symptom. One of them was diagnosed as Apsberger's (the root of her touchphobia and dislike of sexual contact in particular). The others had problems that were psychological in nature and needed therapy.
I think that what ladylicious was getting at with the "experimenting" comment was that sexuality (and asexuality) is a fluid thing. Immediately adopting the label "asexual" and turning off all possibilities that you may find someone and develop sexuality or romance is probably pretty premature at age 20 (my own age as well). Out of pure opinion...sexual libido isn't something you're born with or you're not...you have to work at it to develop it.
I think the "go see a doctor" comments are right on the mark. If there's nothing wrong...great! You're another example of naturally occurring, statistically rare, but healthy asexuality. At the same time, I think many people would rather sweep medical conditions under the rug of the asexual community and ignore the potential that they have medical conditions that need to be addressed.
This sounds remarkably similar to the comment that parents make when their children come out to them. "It's just a phase! You'll grow out of it." I heard this when I came out to my parents as a trans woman. Countless queer friends heard this when they came out as bi/lesbian/gay.
At the same time, I think many people would rather sweep psychological considerations under the rug of the queer community and ignore the potential that they have psychological disorders that need to be addressed.
Sound familiar, anyone?
"This sounds remarkably similar to the comment that parents make when their children come out to them. "It's just a phase! You'll grow out of it." I heard this when I came out to my parents as a trans woman. Countless queer friends heard this when they came out as bi/lesbian/gay."
That was absolutely my first thought. I realized I was queer when I was 14 and up until I was 20ish people told me that I couldn't know because I was so young. Saying to peers "so you think you could really be gay?" shut up most of them. Family was more difficult. In any case, I don't believe in telling someone "you can't know" in regards to whatever identity they feel fits them. They know better than anyone else possibly could.
Sorry to return to this quote again, but there's something else buried in here that needs to be discussed. The fact that ms_grey is generalizing her concerns to "many people" in the "asexual community" is a dead giveaway that on some level she suspects asexuality is generally a disorder or is a case of people fooling themselves.
I think her comment belies an unspoken assumption behind much of this comment thread. The fact that so many people have chimed in with "go see a doctor" shows that there is a general notion that asexuality is a disorder rather than yet another variation of human nature.
I as well have heard "it's just a phase" or "you're just confused" when I came out to my parents.
I'm sorry that's what you took away from the comment. My concern was that a 20 year old hasn't had a whole lot of time living on the planet, and even less experimenting with sexual identity (hell, I'm 20, I'll admit I'm not the most experienced person in the world). Personally, I found I shut out a lot of great romances and new experiences when I took the label straight and being so concerned with keeping that identity. Identities and labels do change, and my advice was simply to be open to changes.
There are no physical disorders or conditions that I'm aware of that can cause homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. However, unlike the other orientations, asexuality CAN BE a symptom of a physical disorder.
I quite clearly don't think people in the asexuality community are fooling themselves. Do I think MANY people do try to sweep it under the rug of the asexual community? Yes. Do I think the majority have issues? No.
Asexuality occurs naturally at about 1% (from the studies I've seen...it probably varies a bit). However, it's still pretty rare, and there are disorders that cause it that are slightly more common. I don't think it's terrible to suggest going to a doctor to be sure.
Again, there are physical disorders that can have asexuality as a symptom. I find the comparisons between other orientations a little bit apples to oranges in that respect. I can't think of any physical disorders that can cause homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.
As I said elsewhere, after reading the comments on this thread, I quickly suspected that "go see a doctor" is a stock response that asexuals face from many, many people. Indeed, it was all too easy to find that confirmed at the Aven website.
While I understand that you are well meaning, your response and the responses of others on this thread are part of a larger pattern of behaviors that leave asexual people feeling alienated from the majority. Read the responses of several asexual people on this thread and you will see that confirmed.
Full disclosure: It's easier for me to "get it" as I live in the gray area between sexual and asexual. I have a very low a sex drive and a very low desire to be romantically involved. I've certainly had my own experiences with alienating comments from those on the "fully sexual" end of the continuum. The initial response among many friends were variations of, "Um, maybe there's something wrong with you and/or your sexuality." I'm certainly tired of hearing that response, so I'm sure many asexuals are too.
There's nothing like being a low/no libido person in a sex-obsessed culture. It's one of many reasons why I choose to ignore pop culture.
It's amazing that repliers seem to be ignoring this sentence:
"If there's nothing wrong...great! You're another example of naturally occurring, statistically rare, but healthy asexuality"
That post is acknowledging, very clearly and emphatically, the fact that asexuality IS one of a variety of __perfectly natural, healthy modes of being__.
While I certainly understand many posters' wholly warranted sensitivity to statements that evoke any syntactical echo of the appalling pathologization of queerness (understood here in the broadest possible sense) carried out by the medical community and the wider culture, (as well as those who identify as asexual feeling marginalized/pathologized in our sex-obsessed culture), it's important that we not let that justified 'patrolling' blind us to discursive realities.
ms_grey, as well as some other proponents here of seeing an m.d. "just in case", clearly _isn't_ saying that asexuality is a disease; hers _isn't_ the stock response. What seems not to be happening in this thread is mindful listening: there is a vital distinction between the statement (which we may call the stock response) "Go see a doctor - not wanting to have sex is abnormal," and the statement "Go see a doctor - while asexuality is in most instances of it, simply a person's natural, healthy, equally-valid-as-any-other orientation/mode of being, it can - in some rare instances - be, instead, the cognitive/emotive/ontological manifestation of a potentially serious physical problem."
Prof. Foxy's answer to Awkward was praiseworthy, and it's heartening to see validation of asexuality as a perfectly healthy dimension in the spectrum of human sexuality. However: in omitting from that response _any_ suggestion of the possibility - no matter how remote - that it could be signalling an underlying health issue and therefore a doc visit would also be a good idea at some point, Prof. Foxy may have let (legitimate) political concerns get in the way of a young person's physical well-being. There's no reason a response couldn't have also included - merely as an addendum to the more important component of reinforcing asexuality as real, legitimate, and healthy - mention of the potential medical issue, written in such a way that didn't imply that asexuality was, qua itself, a "disease".
Whenever we simply omit relevant information in an attempt to strengthen our thesis, we do a disservice not only to thought and our own argument, but sometimes, to the addressee.
There is indeed in our culture, as timberwraith suggests, "a general notion that asexuality is a disorder rather than yet another variation of human nature." It is ALSO true, as ms_grey notes, that "there are physical disorders that can have asexuality as a symptom." It seems to me then that our task is to work hard to dispute and counteract the pathologization of asexuality and work for its acceptance as a natural and valid part of human nature, as well as ensure that no one dies of a brain tumor, or walks around with undiagnosed diabetes because we were too afraid to give ammunition to the opposing side by acknowledging the above.
This seems to me to be a caring, careful and respectful assessment of the situation; thumbs up.
Thank you, I'm pleased it comes across as such, as that was my intent.
(And thanks as well from a more personal standpoint - I don't generally wade into these threads, as they seem often to involve a great deal of ad hominem attacks and shouting, rather than meaningful dialogue, so it's nice to feel that it was worth my time to post it. Calling for reasonableness and rigor of thought lacks the glamour of shouting and knee-jerk polemicizing, but I'm only too happy to take up that cause when important things are being lost in the din.)
Right on! Your whole comment here is great, and my favorite part is
"It's amazing that repliers seem to be ignoring this sentence:
"'If there's nothing wrong...great! You're another example of naturally occurring, statistically rare, but healthy asexuality'"
"That post is acknowledging, very clearly and emphatically, the fact that asexuality IS one of a variety of __perfectly natural, healthy modes of being__..."
Sex is neither the best nor most the important thing in the world.
I agree completely.
As an asexual, thank you for taking this topic out of the shadows and into the spotlight.
All that's missing from this thread is the obligatory male to say, "I'll show you how not to be asexual." In my life, I've had more than a few men tell me that they'd "cure" me of my "problem."
And yeah, if you think we haven't heard all that, "It's probably psychological/hormonal!" bs before, think again. I'm 26. I have lots of health issues and have had tests out the wazoo (and in the wazoo) and my thyroid is fine. My hormones are very well regulated, and even in that case, while it took the little sex drive (during ovulation and menses) away, A.) I don't care, and B.) asexuality is NOT ABOUT SEX DRIVE. I certainly don't have any mental illnesses.
Some people want to do men. Some people want to do women. Some people want to do anyone. Some people want to do people who wear glasses or people with long fingernails. Some people don't want to do anyone at all. I see threads on Feministing where posters are chided for being down on fetishes and claiming it's sick and disturbed. Why then is it okay to say that asexuals are sick and disturbed for NOT DOING ANYTHING? And why is a specific sexual attraction only to people who have some feature considered okay and protected, but having no sexual attraction is WEIRD and SICK?
Certainly I'm another one of those posters who gets pissed off in the "but everyone wants sex!" threads. It's like saying, "But everyone's heterosexual!" and the stating or implying that those who aren't are mentally ill. (And then when you point this out the answer is, "Nuh uh, it's different!!") It's not different. It's exactly the same. The only difference is that asexuals usually aren't persecuted in the same way that gay people are. But I sure can tell you my mom was LIVID when I told her I thought I was asexual. Yes, livid. She would prefer I was a lesbian.
There seems to be a lot of irritation in this thread that centers around the "see a doctor, check for possible medical causes" advice. It seems to me (that with only a couple exceptions), most of the people advocating seeking medical advice are predicating this not on the assumption that there is something wrong with asexuality or minimal or non-existent sex drives, but rather on the assumption that since loss of sex drive may be the result of potentially serious medical issues, it warrants further examination. This seems especially pertinent since the poster's first question was "how do you know if you are asexual?" Medical examination may provide insight into that question.
In any case, it really doesn't seem like most of the commenters here who advocated a medical checkup believe that there is anything inherently wrong with asexuality, or that it needs to be "fixed".
Oh God... why oh why did I start this. I should've seen the derail coming a mile away.
NO there is nothing wrong with my hormones. I have no horrible medical problems that I left out of my letter just to screw with you.
I can't even believe the level of disrespect in these comments. If I'd wrote in "hey, professor foxy, I think I'm a lesbian, how do I know?" nobody would have said:
-your hormones are broken, go to the doctor
-go get some dick, maybe you'll like it
-are you sure you don't have some huge medical
problem that you're not telling us about?
Good God.
Thank you, Professor Foxy, for answering me professionally and politely. I'll look into the sites you gave.
Most of you commenters, on the other hand, should be ashamed of yourselves.
"NO there is nothing wrong with my hormones. I have no horrible medical problems that I left out of my letter just to screw with you."
Awkward, I'm glad to hear that you're in good health. I'm inferring from your comment that you got your hormone levels checked. So, not knowing that you'd already explored the medical side of things, some people suggested you do something that you'd already done. Obviously, you thought it was worth doing.
Now that you know you're healthy, you have a clearer perspective on what's going on. If people suggest that there's something medically wrong with you, you can authoritatively tell them they're wrong. You're perfectly healthy, just not interested in sex.
If you were advising someone else in your position, who hadn't yet ruled out a health issue, would you tell them, "Don't go to the doctor, there's no point?" I mean, now that you know your hormones are okay, you've got some solid evidence to support your hunch that you're asexual. Isn't that valuable?
"If you were advising someone else in your position, who hadn't yet ruled out a health issue, would you tell them, 'Don't go to the doctor, there's no point?'"
Perhaps she would assume that the one asking whether it sounds like she is asexual or not is a reasonable adult who can decide for herself if she needs to see a doctor.
Hi Awkward.I am very happy you commented because I have a question that only you could answer.
Throughout your post you ask two somewhat confusing questions (to me at least) about your possible asexuality. The first was the very first thing you wrote, "How do you know if you're asexual?" and then again near the end when you asked, "Does this sound asexual?" What are you asking exactly?
I think few commenters here were deliberately trying to disrespect you. However, its does seem by the nature of your original post that you arent sure if you are asexual or not, or at the very least not sure why you're asexual. And in this case, it would seem that listing all the possibilities would be appropriate. Even if they include a hormone imbalance.
I hear you. I was the OP for another prof foxy column and let's just say the comment thread left me very disappointed in the feministing community. Stray from the norm a little bit and people will say there's something deeply wrong with you. It's pretty ridiculous and I'm sorry you have to put up with it too.
Hey Awkward, I completely understand your frustration. I have written on topics in the past that got derailed into discussions about things privileged people wanted to talk about instead (or have used as a platform to tell me what is wrong with me). In those instances I've often felt "What was the point of bothering?" and written off the experience, only to have someone tell me later how much they appreciated what I had said, or that they were experiencing a similar thing and it helped them to read about it.
So I guess what I am saying is, despite this thread ending up as it has, I guarantee there are people who read your post and it has helped them out. It is awesome and brave and commendable that you talked openly, and I hope that despite the insensitivity of many of the posters you got something valuable out of this too. Know, too, that despite what might seem like an epidemic of not getting it, some of us do.
Thank you again for sharing this!
Let me put it another way. Awkward, do you wish you didn't know that your hormones are normal? Or is your clean bill of health a valuable piece of the puzzle?
This vehement opposition to the suggestion that anyone might want to see a doctor is irrational.
What I'm arguing, and what I take a lot of other commenters to be saying, is that Prof. Foxy gave great advice to which we would add: If you're not sure if it's asexuality or something else, why not eliminate the most obvious alternatives? This is not saying that there is anything wrong with being asexual. On the contrary, the assumption is that an asexual person is the healthy one compared to someone who is too sick to feel the desire that would ordinarily accompany their orientation.
I'd give the same advice to someone who was asexual and suddenly experienced a surge in their sex drive. Just as there are medical conditions that can suppress interest in sex, there are medical conditions that can push a person the other way, too (strokes, tumors, the side effects of some anti-parkinsons meds, mania in bipolar illness).
Obviously, there's nothing sick or wrong about having a high sex drive, but if it happens to someone who never had one before, that might be evidence of an underlying medical problem.
I agree that asexuality is normal and healthy. I bet you would agree that not everyone who has a low sex drive is asexual. If you are unsure about whether you are asexual or something else, and you want to make up your mind, then it makes sense to rule out other causes.
We get it. Can you stop now?
Yes, please stop.
Given the nature of this thread, I suspect that asexual people hear "but I'm concerned about you" comments ad nauseam. Like so many stock responses I've heard as a queer person—over and fricking over again—I imagine that asexual people are thoroughly tired of hearing these comments.
Again, please stop now.
Exactly. It's similar to "But don't you realize fat is unhealthy?"
It's none of your business to get up in their medical lives. If this were a concern, there would be other symptoms - it's not like there's some disease that just specifically makes someone asexual and gives no other symptoms.
Furthermore, it's NOT THE TOPIC AT HAND. This is not about Awkward's medical history (none of our damn business), it's about her sexual identity, and how she can mediate that in a clearly hostile world.
What is it about asexuality that turns normally decent, logical people into raving concern trolls? Deviate just a scooch from the dominant feminist narrative about "healthy sexuality" and it's all ZOMG SOMETHING IS WONKY IN UR BRAIN, HUNNY!!! SEE TEH DOCTORZ!! IT COULD BE TEH DIABETES??!?!??!?!
I, personally, find two things unappealing:
1. The mushy, wet, nature of oatmeal
2. The mushy, wet, nature of sex
I think you can probably guess which one people decide is indicative of biological or psychological glitches. (It's not the oatmeal.)
I'm not asexual, but I do have several characteristics which tend to make outsiders think there's something deeply wrong with me: 1) I do not experience lust 2) I could pretty much take or leave sex 3) I masturbate only out of boredom or to elicit sleep 4) many aspects of sex gross me the fuck out. Like bodily fluids, with their faintly nauseating, bittersweet, musky scent and flavour, flecks of white gunk, sliminess. Like nutsacks - that sweaty, hairy, spongy bag of skin with those sinewy little balls inside. Like...well, I won't go on. These things don't always give me the flinch-and-cringe, but sometimes they do, and so what. You like your sweaty messy stinky sex on a regular basis, and I like my sterile robotic sex when I'm bored or procrastinating. Ain't no shame!
The automatic assumption is that I've internalized society's airbrushed, plasticized configuration of the human body. That I'm struggling with trauma or self-esteem issues. That I need more iron supplements or ginseng or some shit. But you know what? Most people aren't stupid. Most people have some idea if they are dealing with paralyzing shame or crippling trauma or a baffling loss of physical libido. I dunno if you guys have ever experienced such things, but generally it's not like "Omigod, it never occurred to me that I'm deeply ashamed! And all along I've been feeling just fine!" or "Maybe the reason I've never felt much inclination towards sex is because I have a serious disease that's been flying under the radar my whole life without detection!"
Sometimes, as totally mind-blowing it is, people are just not that into sex. Not everyone desires sex. God knows my desire for sex will never, never outdo my desire for tasty food. Offer me sex or offer me boiled perogies drenched in olive oil, parmesan, ground black pepper and cheddar cheese, and my partner ain't getting laid. People get pleasure from lots of sources. I get mine from Polish cuisine, apparently. You get yours from being eaten out. To each their own. Awkward, I'm sure, has countless sources of pleasure she already enjoys and many more to discover in life. That's nothing to get aghast and solemn about. That's something to support - so when she says "I've discovered I derive some hardcore pleasure from flower-arranging / bike-riding / skydiving / quiet nights reading / Tetris" we can say, hey, that's fucking awesome!
I mean, let's consider the radical notion that the difference between "healthy" and "unhealthy" isn't external (whether it's normal compared to others) but internal (how the actual person involved feels about it). And maybe it's just me, but Awkward seems to be experiencing, more, well, awkwardness than, like, horrific agony and grief. So can we please stop reaching here for the most pathological explanation possible?
In other news (now I am directing this at Awkward, well-meaning concern trolls may tune out) I think the two hardest parts of being asexual are a) dealing with the reactions of other people (as has been amply demonstrated in this very comments section!) and b) figuring out the whole partner thing, if that's something you're into.
Regarding the former, I've personally found it useful to ask brain-boggled friends, "What are your top 3 sources of pleasure? What in life makes you feel good?" That line of questioning automatically puts them in a frame of mind that acknowledges multiple, different sources of pleasure can exist. Then I find they can swallow the idea of "one person's pleasure = another person's aversion" more easily, in addition the trickier idea that sex isn't necessarily a requisite source of pleasure, nor even necessarily a significant one.
I mean, when you think about it, we got by as kids experiencing lots of kinds of pleasure without The Sex. So how does it work; you hit eighteen and suddenly The Sex becomes the one-and-only holy grail of enjoyment? It's so arbitrary.
About the partner thing, it definitely helps to find someone with the same disinterest if monogamy is important to you. That said, it's also possible to make it work with someone who is slightly more into sex and physical intimacy, although it requires creativity. When I'm not feeling it, for example, sometimes I can work myself up to it, but sometimes I choose to just verbally or visually contribute to his fantasy, and sometimes he simply has to pursue sexual pleasure through his own means. It took me awhile, and it may take you awhile too, but if having a partner is something you're into, it is possible to find one who's laidback about the whole thing.
One final point of optimism to remember is that we're at a kind of disproportionately sexed up age, and as we age I think you'll see much less of this sex = essential nonsense. Maybe I'm wrong, but I definitely get the impression that we're a little more sex-focused and sex-obsessed than our elders. Sometimes we forget we have a youth bias, and I don't think we'll fully see it until we're older.
Anyway, good luck...
Great post. Thumbs up.
Here's a post on the top 10 responses to Asexuality. Folks, if you see any of your responses on that list, perhaps you should keep your lips sealed, back away from the keyboard, and reconsider your views on the matter.
Here's a great quote from the article:
The AVENwiki is also another useful link for information about asexuality. The format is very much like Wikipedia and it can be added to the search bar in Mozilla Firefox.
Hey there. I'm a little late in the game, but I just want to add that I'm an asexual WITH hormone problems. I'm intersexed and have very low estrogen. I'm 23 and haven't completed puberty - not that my sex (XY female) technically has a real puberty in the first place.
However, I do have a sex drive. Asexuality, like other sexual orientations, is based around who I am attracted to. Which is nobody. The thought of having sex with men, women, zirs, hirs and eys does not appeal to me. I see people, and lord knows my friend in England tried hard to get me to rate people based on their looks, but all I saw was some guy sitting on the tube. (And yes, I understand the symbolism behind trains in tunnels.)
The bottom line is, I can take care of my own sex drive easily, which is fortunate since I'm not interested in anyone.
Thanks for giving some clarification on this; reading through these comments I was becoming increasingly aware of one of the elements of my ignorance many other sexual posters seem to share: that there is a difference between asexuality in terms of attraction and variations in sex drive, and while these things are closely linked they are not necessarily one and the same.
Regarding the crushes the OP mentions:
Just like sexual people can be physically/sexually attracted to others without any emotional attraction being involved the opposite can happen as well - especially to asexuals, I'd presume.
I'm a very sexual person, myself, (or at least I was before the anti-depressants, now, half a year after I got off them the libido is sloooooowly picking up again *sigh*) but I can easily be all gushy and gooey eyed over a lovable person, without being at all sexually attracted to them, just like I can have the major hots for someone without wanting to know them personally and emotionally.
While the two things often go together, they don't always and I think that's very important to remember.
What I'm trying to say is that the OP's crushes prove absolutely nothing as a crush is emotional and not necessarily sexual. The easiest way to tell if a crush is sexual: does looking at the person make your hard/wet? (depending on gender obviously) The easiest way to tell if it's emotional: does looking at the person make you giddy and send butterflies through your stomach (or however else you'd describe it)?
It can be either and it can be a combination of the two, but they are most certainly not the same.
You're right, crushes aren't always sexual.
Asexual people do get into relationships. They have their own dating sites.
Chances are no one's reading this anymore anyway, but after withdrawing from the discussion for my own emotional health I've been mulling it over again and there is one thing I really want to point out.
A lot of people here have gotten the basic definition of asexuality wrong.
There's been a lot of comments about medical issues and needing to get checked by doctors because, of course, it could be physiological!!! However, as far as I know everything that has been mentioned either affects the libido or is something where I have absolutely no clue how it's supposed to tie in with asexuality (...diabetes). Asexuality is about attraction. There are plenty of asexual people with a libido (*waves hi*) and plenty of sexual ones without. A lot of the comments have been taking it for granted that certain physiological issues could mimic the effects of asexuality, but more and more I honestly doubt that's true - an illness that made people asexual would be pretty much the exact equivalent of an illness that made bi people solely straight or gay, and last I checked that wasn't considered plausible.
In short, what Parth said. All of it.
Also, I'd really like it if people thought about how important it is to do some basic research on the subject at hand /before/ you stick your oar in. The difference between sexual attraction and sex drive is such a basic tenet of asexuality discussions and so fundamental to my own experience that I never even realised it might need to be explained, but looking back on the discussion it seems as if a large portion of commentators didn't realise it existed. Considering this is one of the first things you learn in Asex 101, well explained in helpful FAQs on AVEN and there was a link to AVEN in the main post I really can't help but find this frustrating.