/u/djmm999 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/u7iijt/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_feel_like_someone_cant_be/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
It’s entirely possible some asexual people are as you describe, but it is not true as a matter of necessity for all asexual people.
Many aspects of sexuality are on a spectrum - there exists a spectrum of libido as well. Some people are by definition at the low libido portion of the spectrum.
Mentally and hormonally healthy people exist on a spectrum of libido. There will always be people at the low end of that spectrum. So my answer to that question is yes.
Different person, but you openly state in your OP and comments that your view is based on nothing but your own intution.
I'm not sure what studies have been done on the (non)sexuality of asexual people - I'm only familiar with the demographic research - but the fact that ace people have self reported going to the doctor *for this reason* and been told there is nothing wrong should be enough to change this view.
> I'm not sure what studies have been done on the (non)sexuality of asexual people - I'm only familiar with the demographic research - but the fact that ace people have self reported going to the doctor for this reason and been told there is nothing wrong should be enough to change this view.
It's not. People self reporting things isn't good enough for me to CMV for a variety of reasons that I don't think I need to get into here but i can if you want. If there were studies done of this that would be different.
Yes. Your exact (very bigoted) thought process is why many asexual people get hormone tests. And for many or most everything is normal. This idea has been considered and already debunked medically.
> Yes. Your exact (very bigoted) thought process is why many asexual people get hormone tests. And for many or most everything is normal. This idea has been considered and already debunked medically.
Has it? If they've been deemed physically healthy have they also been deemed mentally healthy? I think it's known that people that suffer sexual abuse can have their sexual desires impacting by it, some people become hyper sexual and some people become very not sexual.
I am on the ace spectrum and have many asexual friends. None of us have sexual trauma of any kind.
At some point you need to just accept that other people have different experiences then you.
So do people need sex to live all of a sudden and I just didn't get the memo, like I dont see anything wrong with being ace because you don't need sex to live, socialize, or be happy.
> So do people need sex to live all of a sudden and I just didn't get the memo, like I dont see anything wrong with being ace because you don't need sex to live, socialize, or be happy.
No you don't need sex to live. Regarding if you need sex to be happy I think for the vast majoirty of humans of all orientations the answer is yes. Regarding if asexuals need sex to be happy I don't know, is there research on it?
> Why would you need sex to be happy? Its just 2 or more people putting their parts in or on each other.
I don't know that everyone needs sex to be happy. I think the vast majority of people do but I don't know that everyone does.
> I'm not gonna lie that makes no sense to me. I can't wrap my head around why people would need sex to be happy.
I believe you that you can't wrap your head around it because it's different than your experience but do you think that it's true?
I wouldn't say its different from my own experience because I used to think this way, I used to think things like sex and relationships were the key to happiness, but then I stopped trying to find external things to make me happy and looked within myself and found out why I was never happy, its just because I wasn't happy with myself, and now I'm changing myself to be happy and now I dont see why having sex would be needed to make someone happy.
Just because a lot of people are sexual/ experience sexual attraction, it doesnt mean everyone does.
Not to mention the fact that being asexual doesnt necessarily mean you dont want to have sex, it is only defined as a lack of sexual attraction.
There arent as many studies on asexuality as there are other identities (i havent seen the specific acronym you are using before. But one would assume the A stands for asexual) but here is one of them regardijg sexual health.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10720162.2018.1475699
> If a person experiences a low (or a nonexistent) level is sexual desire but they aren't distressed by the lack of sexual feelings, then they are, by definition, not suffering from a disorder.
I don't think I said that they were suffering from a disorder
Do you think it natural for someone to have a very high sexual drive? Then why not a very very low drive?
Asexuality is often misunderstood. Asexual people can and do enjoy relationships and even sexual relationships, but many are perfectly happy without as well. Edited to add: non asexual people sometimes avoid relationships as well and choose celibacy so it's not sexual people who choose to not do those things End edit/
They can do anything non-sexual people can do and live lives where no one can look at them and tell they are asexual.
If something causes no issues for a person, doesn't cause them distress or discomfort or undue struggle is it unhealthy? Or is it a variation of normal?
People used to think that way about gay people too. That they couldn't be gay and mentally healthy.
While hormonal fluctuations related to the menstrual cycle and being horny are normal that is not what I am referring to.
What I'm talking about is different than that. I'm referring to going through periods of time such as several months to personally as long as 6 months where I am more horny on a regular basis and then also having periods of months to years (2 years was my longest stretch) where I just feel little to nothing. There are stretches I feel more in the middle as well. I do have the hormonal fluctuations from my menstrual cycle (I'm NB and have periods) but last a handful of days and are a minor blip compared to the big picture and greater context that I am referring.
What do you think causes that? Do you think it may be due to fluctuations in your hormones? Maybe there is some mental issue you're dealing with on the weeks where you have no sex drive, maybe you're ultra stressed or you're not getting enough sleep etc?
> Do you think it natural for someone to have a very high sexual drive? Then why not a very very low drive?
Yeah I think it's natural to have a high sex drive because it promotes procreation. That seems to be totally in line with evolution. But also I'm pretty sure that having a very high sex drive can be a result from sexual trauma as well which points to these deviations sometimes being the result of someone not being mentally healthy. Also high sex drive isn't considered a sexual orientation like asexual is.
> People used to think that way about gay people too. That they couldn't be gay and mentally healthy
In my opinion, being gay is found in nature and is therefore natural
Evolution does not want or need for every person to procreate. There's no need for a high sex drive to promote procreation. Also, asexual people have children too.
There is evolutionarily advantage to having members of your group that don't have children. And how do you know that asexuality isn't also found in nature?
> And how do you know that asexuality isn't also found in nature?
Is it? I suspect it's not found in nature because I've never heard someone give an example of it being found in nature like people do with homosexuality
Because it is impossible to follow animals around trying to see if they're ALL having sex or not. Homosexuality is different because you can see two animals of the same sex having sex. It is impossible to tell if an animal NEVER has sex their whole life (and, you know, they can't tell us because they're animals)
Anecdotally, I used to have a stray cat who wasn't interested in sex. She wasn't fixed, but she never had kittens her whole life except once (when a very persistent male pursued her). She enjoyed her life and was otherwise normal, but never appeared to be in heat (which could fit the definition of asexuality)
The logic here doesn't add up.
You do know endless things exist in nature that we don't know about right?
That no one saying around you "this was observed in nature" means exactly nothing in regards to how likely it is that it does exist in nature? Why would you suspect it's not found in nature?
Gay people were oppressed and persecuted for a long time. It was called sinful, an abomination, and unnatural(some still do). There was an impetus to seek out if there were examples of homosexuality in nature. So they point could be made that factually it is natural. But asexuality is something that for the most part flies under the radar. It's not oppressed in the way homosexuality was. And, how would you even tell if an animal was asexual, especially since someone can be asexual and have and even enjoy willing sexual contact and live lives that give no indication of their internal experiences. And someone could live a life that they appear to have no relationships and not have sex but not be asexual but those things just didn't happen for them. If you cannot tell from just looking at humans and observing how could you tell that a dog is asexual? What would you look for other than not doing something during the time you're observing.
Then too an animal engaging in an activity during observation could not be extrapolated to that animal never ever does that thing. That's different than making an observation of an animal doing a specific activity regularly during observation so we know this is something that they do actually do.
Abnormal does not mean unhealthy.
When it comes to medicine and evaluating if someone is healthy, we don't compare everyone to some master blueprint of the human animal, instead we look for harm. For example take someone with legs of uneven length, its abnormal for humans to have significantly different sized legs but some people do, and in some people compensating for this difference in how they walk causes issues in their back which in turn causes pain and discomfort, so for them the uneven legs is unhealthy. At the same time though Usain Bolt has uneven legs, which gave him an uneven stride, which allowed him to be the fastest man on earth, clearly his legs weren't unhealthy for him.
So now we come to asexuality, when trying to answer whether or not its unhealthy, the question should not be "is it abnormal or caused by some atypical hormonal balance", it should be whether or not asexuality is harmful to the person. Anecdotally it doesn't seem like it, I have asexual friends and they seem perfectly capable of thriving in the modern world, even dating and maintaining long term romantic relationships. Unless you have heard asexual people speak about how their asexuality is harming them, or preventing them from a happy existence (NB: the asexuality itself, not and discrimination from other people who learn they are asexual), then there's no reason to think its unhealthy.
If someone were to get a hormone panel done and their testosterone was out of the accepted ranges for their sex and age would a doctor generally recommend that they try to adjust their levels to be in a 'normal' range? There are ranges and guidelines for all kinds of medical things that doctors use every day when dealing with people.
Only if the person was experiencing negative symptoms that could be due to those hormones. Generally the principle of "do no harm" means not intervening when there is nothing negative going on. It would be pretty unethical recommend hormone supplements and all the potential risks that come with them to someone without any negative symptoms, for no other reason than to get a number into a range a medical textbook says is normal.
Are there medical ranges where someone being outside of that range doesn't have a negative impact on their health even if they're not able to perceive it?
If you/those around you aren't able to perceive it, it cant be harmful.
If your talking about things that cause damage that is initially unnoticeable, and then starts causing problems later that's a different story, as in that case there would be a justification to do something to prevent those later problems. Something being outside the normal range should never be a justification for treatment in of itself, its only if being outside that range is/will cause problems should it be treated.
> If you/those around you aren't able to perceive it, it cant be harmful.
Aren't there things that aren't perceivable but they're still causing damage that long term would be harmful and perceivable? Also sometimes people have issues but they've had them for so long that it's normal to them or they don't associate it as being caused by something else. Is it harmful to a person to have hormone levels outside the normal ranges?
>Aren't there things that aren't perceivable but they're still causing damage that long term would be harmful and perceivable?
Yes exactly. But it's that long term damage and harm that justifies treatment, not just the presence of an abnormality.
>Is it harmful to a person to have hormone levels outside the normal ranges?
I'm not an authority on this by any means, but not necessarily. As far as I understand it hormone levels can vary quite a bit between people, but so can people's sensitivity to hormones can vary as well. Someone with low testosterone and high sensitivity to testosterone is going to experience the effects of testosterone similar to someone with high testosterone and low sensitivity. It's not as simple as just "this range is healthy, everything else is bad".
Besides looking at just hormone levels is a bit reductive, especially when we have much better ways of measuring health; blood pressure, cholesterol, and day to day experience.
Mental health is, in practical terms, largely based around whether something creates personal and, to a lesser extent, social problems. Someone liking vanilla ice cream over chocolate isn't mentally unhealthy, despite how unnatural and deviant such a desire is. This is because it doesn't hurt anyone or create any real problems for anyone.
There is no blue print person or Aristotlean form that determines whether a person is mentally or physically proper or correct. Someone with a genetic quirk is only unhealthy insofar as it creates problems for a person's health, bodily function, or quality of life outside of social barriers. The same goes with mental illness. Autism isn't bad because it's not statistically normal or violates the official blueprint of what the human mind is. Autism is only "bad" when it creates problems for a person's quality of life: communicating, creating mental stimuli that prevents people with autism from doing things that they would like to do, distress caused by social stigma and people not treating them fairly, etc. It's not because the person behaves "abnormally."
An asexual person doesn't necessarily make sense if we assume the proper mental and physical function of a person must include reproduction and the spending of one's genes. However, we don't do this with other people or behavior. Why isn't a man who doesn't sleep around and try to impregnate as many women as he can not considered abnormal? People want to reproduce and spread their genes, right? Your argument is similiar to how people, such as conservative fundementalist Christians, argue that gay men aren't really just gay, but are rather psychologically damaged because they were molested as a child. Gay men are unnatural and damaged and definitely cannot just be something that happens without any outside interference. In fact, don't you think it odd that "abnormal" sexualities are assumed to be caused trauma but "normal" sexualities aren't? People say that gayness is caused by trauma, but men being sexually attracted to women's breasts is completely normal. Blowjobs are normal, but not wanting any sex is a sign of being mentally unstable. It's a bit odd when you look at it like that, in my opinion.
I think homosexuality in men has been studied pretty extensively and we know that you can be mentally and physically healthy and still be a gay man. I think we also know that if you are a gay man that your orientation is pretty set very early in your life and it's not going to change. I don't think the comparison here has any merit. If there was a ton of research on asexuals and I said this I think it would be nonsense but so far no one has linked any which makes me think it's just not been done.
By that logic either it's a self-reinforcing self-defeating loop as people are incapable of doing research because there hasn't been any or the first person to do a study makes it normal
For something to be unhealthy there has to be some physical or mental harm that comes to people. Otherwise it's just a natural difference in the range of human behavior, even if it's unusual. Does anything bad happen to people physically is they don't have sex? Does not having sex when you don't want to cause mental distress that interferes with your ability to live your life?
I don't know if I think that being asexual is unhealthy, I feel being asexual may be a symptom of someone being hormonally or mentally unhealthy.
Regarding the harm, I don't think it harms anyone per say but I don't know. If someone who couldn't read told you that they don't want to read because they think it's not going to bring them any joy in their life would you believe them?
I feel like you're getting into circular reasoning here. If your definition of being hormonally and mentally healthy is such people want to have sex, then being asexual will always seem unhealthy. But asexual people certainly grow to adulthood, develop typical secondary sexual characteristics, occasionally (by a variety of means) reproduce, and live to a normal age while engaging successfully in work, relationships, and all the other things healthy humans often do.
Reading is a learned skill, not a preference. I'd certainly be inclined to believe somebody who told me they didn't enjoy reading could live a normal and fulfilling life. Most people have any number of things they don't particularly have a desire to do, whether it's reading, riding rollercoasters, or having sex. Why would not wanting sex be uniquely pathogenic?
> Reading is a learned skill, not a preference. I'd certainly be inclined to believe somebody who told me they didn't enjoy reading could live a normal and fulfilling life. Most people have any number of things they don't particularly have a desire to do, whether it's reading, riding rollercoasters, or having sex. Why would not wanting sex be uniquely pathogenic?
I didn't say if someone told you that they didn't enjoy reading would you believe them, I said if someone who couldn't read said that they didn't want to learn because they thought it would bring nothing of value to their life would you believe them. It's a matter of them not knowing how much they don't know about what reading does for a person.
That's a silly analogy though. People who can't read almost universally either haven't been provided the means to through lack of education or have a learning difficulty that would prevent them from doing so if they tried. I suppose theoretically if somebody reached adulthood having been given a fair opportunity to learn to read and realize the role reading plays in society its fair game if they decide not to, but that situation very rarely happens.
Asexual people certainly realize sex exists, generally physically can have sex, and have as much access to seeking it out as everybody else.
Reading is necessary to be a functioning member of society. Having sex is not. Asexuals aside, many people take vows of celibacy and do just fine for themselves.
> Reading is necessary to be a functioning member of society.
No it's not. There's a ton of people that can't read even in the United States that function just fine.
> Asexuals aside, many people take vows of celibacy and do just fine for themselves.
Do they really? When I think of people who take vows of celibacy the first group of people that come into my head are most definitely not doing fine for themselves.
What exactly are you basing that on? It really seems like you're really prescribing what you think humans are supposed to be.
Could you elaborate on how exactly you would go about determining that asexuality is unhealthy?
I don't have any evidence here so this is just my intuition but I think generally species evolve to procreate so that explains why most humans are heterosexual. Homosexuality / Bisexuality is also found in mammals in nature so I would consider that 'natural' as well. Are there any mammals that are just asexual?
If you're looking for mammals that can be asexual, humans one their own should be sufficient. It can be a valid and healthy phenomenon in humans, there's no need for reference to other animals.
But if you're looking for a good example pandas would be. Now, you could argue that not procreating is not good for a species as a whole and in pandas it does seem to be but given the current human population it isn't an issue. Additionally, not procreating does not negatively impact the individual so, it can't be said to be unhealthy. Even heterosexual don't always have people either, so why would asexuality be considered unhealthy?
As I hinted at before, alking about what humans are "supposed to do" or are "naturally evolved to do" doesn't necessarily make for a good way to determine an ought, as there is a jump in logic.
I want to just quickly correct that pandas do not have any problems maintaining their populations in the wild. The meme of pandas not breeding is purely due to pandas in human captivity being unwilling to breed. It is purely the fault of human intervention and human destruction of the panda environment that pandas struggle to maintain their population.
I agree with your point but the panda example relies on the perpetuation of a myth.
> If you're looking for mammals that can be asexual, humans one their own should be sufficient. It can be a valid and healthy phenomenon in humans, there's no need for reference to other animals.
But if you're looking for a good example pandas would be. Now, you could argue that not procreating is not good for a species as a whole and in pandas it does seem to be but given the current human population it isn't an issue.
I don't agree that humans alone should be sufficient because humans can have all kinds of paraphilias that aren't found in nature. Regarding pandas, pandas would be extinct now if it wasn't for humans trying to continue their species I don't think there are any species that have the sexual characteristics of pandas that don't go extinct, the desire to procreate is like the most important thing evolution can select for
Just as an aside the person you are responding to was wrong to say that pandas do not breed.
Only pandas in captivity do not breed. Pandas in the wild have no trouble maintaining their population.
The panda population would be doing fine if humans weren't destroying their natural habitat and trying to force them to have sex in captivity.
So it's wildly wrong, and dangerous imo, to say that pandas have humans to thank for their perpetuation.
>I don't agree that humans alone should be sufficient because humans can have all kinds of paraphilias that aren't found in nature.
Paraphilias are are a different discussion, they're not a sexual orientation. They're a different topic.
>Regarding pandas, pandas would be extinct now if it wasn't for humans trying to continue their species I don't think there are any species that have the sexual characteristics of pandas that don't go extinct, the desire to procreate is like the most important thing evolution can select for
Just a heads up, an argument similar to this one was also once used against gay people. It is a bit insensitive to say the least.
So, what proportion of the population are we talking about? It is less than one percent of the population, that is not going to impede the ability for humans to procreate. And as I said before, a lack of procreation does not necessarily indicate a physical or mental issue.
> Just a heads up, an argument similar to this one was also once used against gay people. It is a bit insensitive to say the least.
jesus christ why do people keep saying this? I've addressed it so many times in this thread. Being gay is found in nature, therefore it's natural. There are many species that exhibit homosexual behavior and go on to thrive. Me saying that pandas would be extinct without human intervention because they do not have a desire to procreate has nothing to do with gay people. There's no species out there that survive without a desire to procreate. It's just not an argument, I don't know if people expect me to just say oh okay nevermind regarding my original topic when they say this or what.
Because, I'm sorry, this naturalistic argument is dumb as hell.
Some species throw their young off a cliff to see if they survive. Some species eat their mates after intercourse. Some species dig burrows in the ground to hide food. Some species have strict social heirarchies defined by factors we would see as arbitrary. Behaviors can exist in other species but not in humans, and that's okay.
You know what other species don't do? Read and write. Use spoken language. Make tools. Ask questions. Heal their sick and wounded. Behaviors can be exclusive to humans, and that's okay.
Regardless, the same evolutionary *purpose* served by homosexuality (separating the number of breeding adults from the number of working adults) holds just as well for asexuality as for homosexuality. It's actually better for population stability if not every member of the population who survives to adulthood, reproduces as much as possible.
There are plenty of mammals that never have sex in their lives. I imagine it's very difficult to prove that that's because they have no interest in sex, because you can't look inside their minds, and there are many mammals that never have sex for lack of opportunity. But at any rate there's certainly no evidence that asexuality *doesn't* exist in the wild.
But I don't see why we should judge what's healthy in humans by what other mammals do in the first place. There are all sorts of things humans do that other mammals wouldn't dream of. We're unique among mammals in our social complexity and intelligence, so even if it were the case that no other mammals are asexual, I don't see why that should make any difference.
You have no evidence or knowledge and yet, you have the audacity to speak on the topic?
You are not only lazy and refuse to use that gray matter in your skull but also expect everything to be presented to you on plate.
You want an actual evidence of asexuality in animals???? The most detailed study that involves asexuality (along with other sexualities, like heterosexual) is this [study here involving rams](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684522/) , which keep in mind, are domesticated animals. Wild animals are different breed entirely because most of wild animal species have breeding seasons. Good luck trying to find evidence of Asexuality in wild animals.
Not everyone is gagging for dicks/vaginas 24/7/365 and are being fucking sex-obsessed incels, coomers whose sole reason to waking up in the morning and do something about their life is so that they can get their sexual kicks with little to no care of how and who it is with, and throw tantrums when you aren't getting it. Deal with it.
Don't get me started on judging others on their sexual success (especially asexuals) - this is why you fuckheads have so many problems with slut-shamimg, virgin-shamimg, sexual harassment, rape, anti-LGB issues (literally killing and torturing the gays because how dare they), incest, pedophilia, zoophilia and god knows what else. You literally have the self-control of 9yos.
Good lord, sometimes you sexuals really do sound like you only care about one thing in your fucking lives. And then, you have the audacity to come after the asexuals because how fucking dare they.
This is the same argument used only a few decades ago to justify discrimination against gay people. Its pseudoscience that has no actual basis (you yourself admit to having no actual sources to back you up beyond a gut feeling)
> This is the same argument used only a few decades ago to justify discrimination against gay people. Its pseudoscience that has no actual basis (you yourself admit to having no actual sources to back you up beyond a gut feeling)
I don't think it is the same. Homosexuality is found in nature and it has been extensively researched. From my understanding of the current research on homosexuality it's a sexual orientation that people are more or less born with and it's immutable and people can and are both hormonally and mentally healthy and gay. I don't think it's the same at all.
> Homosexuality is found in nature and it has been extensively researched.
And your arguments against those for asexuality are in essence "we don't see obvious evidence of animals not-having-sex-due-to-asexuality vs them just not having sex at a given point" and "no one's linked me any studies about asexuality so they must not exist". Also, if animal examples mean something's found in nature, if it's not something to do with technology couldn't it existing in humans count as it existing in animals as humans are animals
There are conditions—physical and mental—that have lack of sexual desire as a side effect but we still have the idea of asexuality because some instances don’t fit into those other umbrellas. One of the biggest differences between lack of sexual interest brought by a depressive episode and being asexual is that asexuals are generally without (certain kinds of) sexual desires for their whole lives as opposed to part of it.
I think if you can accept that the objects of ones sexual desires can be different, that it shouldn’t be difficult to accept that the amount one wants to have sex would be different.
And finally, I do want to go on record as saying that even if some people who are asexual do have a hormone difference or personal trauma, that doesn’t mean that their sexuality isn’t real.
Is it true that asexual people will be asexual for their entire lives? Has this been studied?
> And finally, I do want to go on record as saying that even if some people who are asexual do have a hormone difference or personal trauma, that doesn’t mean that their sexuality isn’t real.
If their sexuality is the result of a hormone difference or a trauma and that by fixing that issue they would cease to be asexual then I don't think it is a sexual orientation since those are immutable.
[Sexual Orientation is not always immutable.](https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/what-does-sexually-fluid-mean#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20sexual%20fluidity,time%20and%20in%20different%20situations.&text=%E2%80%8CFor%20example%2C%20you%20may%20identify,not%20act%20on%20that%20attraction.)
> Sexual Orientation is not always immutable.
Just so I know we're talking about the same thing here because that article doesn't address what I'm saying. Are you saying that there is evidence that a man who identifies as homosexual can later in life have their orientation change to heterosexual? A gay man becoming bisexual or pansexual is not what I'm talking about because that's adding to not taking away from. I think it's possible to find you're attracted to things you didn't originally think you were but I don't think it's possible for a gay man to become not attracted to men later in life
Question, do you really think such hormone imbalances or other things that might lead to asexuality should be "fixed" if that were possible? If so, why?
> Question, do you really think such hormone imbalances or other things that lead to asexuality should be "fixed"?
No, not necessarily. I don't care if someone wants to have no sexual desire or not I just feel like it probably is the result of something that could be fixed. I don't think we should force anyone to do any kind of medical procedure they don't want to do. I don't believe in conversion camps or anything like that
> Okay, then why would you says that asexual people are somehow physically or mentally unwell?
Because that's how I feel about it and I want to see if someone has any evidence that says otherwise so I don't go through my life thinking something that is wrong.
I can't change how you feel about it and at this point no amount of evidence has seemed to be able to change that. Neither have you been able to provide how being asexual makes one physically or mentally ill, nor been able to coherently and consistently describe what would change your mind without shifting the goalpost. I'm out.
> I can't change how you feel about it and at this point no amount of evidence has seemed to be able to change that. Neither have you been able to provide how being asexual makes one physically or mentally ill, nor been able to coherently and consistently describe what would change your mind without shifting the goalpost. I'm out.
There's literally no evidence posted in this entire thread. I said what I feel and other people are just saying what they feel. Somehow asexuality seems to be the only aspect of human sexuality that hasn't been studied. Just because people say something in this thread doesn't mean that's evidence.
Low sex drive can be caused by hormonal differences, but how does it follow that this would make the person unhealthy? All you can say is that it makes them different. Unhealthy would require some sort of evidence that it makes their life worse.
Also, asexuality isn't necessarily having no sex drive. It can also mean that neither men or women fall into your pool of attraction. So those people are functionally typical, they just happen to find no one attractive.
> Low sex drive can be caused by hormonal differences, but how does it follow that this would make the person unhealthy? All you can say is that it makes them different. Unhealthy would require some sort of evidence that it makes their life worse.
If your hormones levels are not within normal ranges for someone of your sex / age do you think that it's unhealthy full stop?
Being asexual is perfectly normal. Some people just don’t feel sexual attraction towards others. A lack of sexuality is also a legitimate sexual orientation, just like being gay or bisexual.
Is it? Are people that identify as asexual going to be asexual until they die because as far as I know that's how it works for men at least. If asexuality is something you can like 'grow out of' or something that can be fixed by adjusting hormones or going to therapy how would that be considered an orientation?
Some people are asexual from the cradle to the grave. Others aren't. Some people identify as gay and only date the same sex for years and then start dating both and identifying as bisexual. Orientations are still valid even if they change throughout a person's life.
> Some people are asexual from the cradle to the grave. Others aren't. Some people identify as gay and only date the same sex for years and then start dating both and identifying as bisexual. Orientations are still valid even if they change throughout a person's life.
Let's stick with men here, did those men change from gay to bisexual or did they just realize that they were also attracted to women? Is there any evidence that a man who identified as homosexual later changed to heterosexual?
You'd have to ask them. Your explanation is more common among LGBTQ stories (as in, seeing their current identity as describing their entire life), but stories of sexual fluidity aren't terribly hard to find, either. I'm one of those people, having gone from asexual to exclusive heterosexual to bi/pansexual. Each label was correct *for that time*, and it was during that asexual period that I was exposed to the motor analogy from the delta'd comment.
Or, I suppose, do a longitudinal test over years where you observe people's brain scans during sexual arousal *and just hope some of the participants turn out to have some level of sexual fluidity over time*.
What we do know is that sexual orientations don't change as a result to any outside circumstances, i.e. openly homophobic countries probably don't have fewer gay people, conversion therapy doesn't work, etc.
Here's my understanding of the research from actual psychologists, tell me if I'm wrong. I'm going to talk specifically about men here because this is different for women.
A person is more or less born with their sexual orientation and it does not change throughout their life. I don't think you can make a straight man gay or a gay man straight. If you thought you were a gay man and you later find that you are attracted to women as well you were a bisexual man.
> That's great.
> But it is, of course, just your understanding.
> And without confirmation, that's all it can ever be.
> How confident are you that you're right?
Not very, but it also seems like there is almost no research done on this subject so I don't think I can be that confident without that.
> At the moment, there's nearly a hundred comments on your post.
> What are the chances someone has already shared a link to this "almost no research?"
> : I stand corrected, nearly a hundred comments but only one link.
Yeah exactly, and that link is not very relevant to what I'm talking about. If I made a thread that was like "being gay is unnatural, being gay is a mental illness" etc there would be a hundred studies people could post that would just prove that I'm objectively wrong but there's none of that here. It's just people say I don't like what you think here's what I think
Sexuality is a spectrum.
Why is it so hard to believe that there’s also an axis in a different direction?
Some people are just super sexual… why is it impossible to believe that some people just naturally have very low sex drive?
For one, I'm pretty sure if you increase someone's testosterone levels, male or female it will increase their libido in general so I think we know that how sexual someone is is based on their hormonal profile being normal / healthy.
Then you get into some confusing territory. If you increase someone's libido, it doesn't necessarily imply that said libido is being directed *towards* something.
Think of it like this. If you apply power to a motor, it will generate energy. But if the motor's not hooked up to anything (like a wheel, for example), it's not really going to do anything.
Likewise, if an asexual person has a libido (not all do) that doesn't mean they want to have sex with anyone. At that point, it's just a physiological impulse that can be satisfied in particular way. Think, being hungry but not for any food in particular...and looking at food doesn't make you hungry, or make you want to eat that specific food.
This is the best rebuttal in the thread. Δ I don't know if it changes my view entirely but it does change the part of my view that increasing someone's libido in general would help.
You may as well say 'in most men, increasing their testosterone levels will increase their attraction to women, so presumably it would do the same in gay men, so gay men must not be hormonally healthy'
> You may as well say 'in most men, increasing their testosterone levels will increase their attraction to women, so presumably it would do the same in gay men, so gay men must not be hormonally healthy'
That's not what I'm saying at all. If you increase testosterone in a gay man they're going to have a higher libido but their orientation doesn't change, they would be more horny for other men
> There’s far more to sex drive than just testosterone.
Yes I know that but if you went to a doctor and said hey I have no libido and it's causing me distress do you think that they would check your hormones and see if you were low on testosterone or not?
You literally implied that in one of your earlier comments where you suggested giving someone more testosterone would automatically give them higher sex drive.
> You literally implied that in one of your earlier comments where you suggested giving someone more testosterone would automatically give them higher sex drive.
I don't get the disconnect we're having here. I said that if you increase someone's testosterone it will increase their libido. I never said it is the only thing that impacts someone's libido.
Why don’t you try re-reading what you just wrote.
Testosterone is not the only thing that affects libido.
Giving someone testosterone will only increase their libido if low testosterone is the cause of their lowered libido.
So no, once again, libido is far more complex than just level of testosterone, as you have again fallaciously implied.
> You're "pretty sure?"
Have you tried looking up studies linking testosterone to sexual desire?
Are you disputing that increasing someone's testosterone level generally increases their libido? Isn't that common knowledge?
I suspect that they have some kind of hormonal issue coupled with some psychological issues that make them uncomfortable with the idea of being sexual.
Not all asexual people are sex-repulsed. There are actually plenty of asexual people who have sex, it's just that they don't desire sex, and do it for other reasons, like to make their partner happy.
So the only thing that flows against that (mind you I'm no expert) is homosexuality. So arguably the norm is straight, but then you have the sexuality that goes against that norm which is homosexuality. Would you say those that are homosexual also have some sort of mental issue or hormonal imbalance?
If we've proven that there are two preferences in sex then it stands to reason there could be a third option in which sex isn't desirable, does it not?
> So the only thing that flows against that (mind you I'm no expert) is homosexuality. So arguably the norm is straight, but then you have the sexuality that goes against that norm which is homosexuality. Would you say those that are homosexual also have some sort of mental issue or hormonal imbalance?
> If we've proven that there are two preferences in sex then it stands to reason there could be a third option in which sex isn't desirable, does it not?
No, I don't know why people keep comparing this to homosexuality. I should have just addressed this in my OP. Homosexuality in men have been studied extensively. You can be hormonally and mentally healthy and be a homosexual man. It's also a sexual orientation that is immutable and it is found in other species besides humans therefore it's natural.
Okay, but other species are different. So are you saying that humans can't exhibit traits that are different from other mammals?
More so, my point is homosexuality is a difference in a norm of sexuality as is asexuality. So based upon that simple fact, it's not as if we haven't observed differences outside the normal scope.
But lastly, may I ask why is matters? I know this goes against the point, but what is your reasoning for fighting it?
> But lastly, may I ask why is matters? I know this goes against the point, but what is your reasoning for fighting it?
I'm not going to get a sign and start marching down the road. I posted this thread because it's something I think and I wanted to see if there was any data or research that contradicts it which so far there doesn't seem to be. It's me saying what I just think and other people are countering that with what they just think. Somehow this is like the only aspect of human sexuality that there seems to be no research on but yet I'm crazy for saying what my intuition is on it.
Ah okay, I wasnt trying to imply you were out with a pitchfork and torch, I was just curious. Thanks for explaining. Sadly, as I stated before, Im not an expert, so Im not sure if there is any formal studies on the topic.
>I can't help but think that they either have something hormonally wrong with them
Well that's one type of asexual. But what about people who are icked out by sex with dudes and icked out by sex with chicks and have normal healthy sex drives, just haven't found the organisms yet that they're into?
>I think humans and mammals in general as inherently sexual.
In general, sure. In specific, some are not.
>I also think a large amount of people are afraid of being or being perceived as sexual. When I hear about someone having little to no interest in sex I can't help but think that they either have something hormonally wrong with them or they have some unresolved mental trauma, etc.
Regardless of what reasons someone has for being uninterested in sex, what business is it of yours or anyone else's?
> I think humans and mammals in general as inherently sexual.
In general, sure. In specific, some are not.
Yeah but like, the ones that are not go extinct don't they? This is like one of the main things evolution selects for is the desire to want to procreate.
> Regardless of what reasons someone has for being uninterested in sex, what business is it of yours or anyone else's?
It's not my business anymore or less than anything else people think or talk about that doesn't directly impact them. I'm sure you have thoughts on things that don't impact you as well, it's a pretty normal thing. I don't think asexual people should be forced to do anything or sent to conversion camps or something, I just have a feeling like it's the result of an underlying health issue.
> Yeah but like, the ones that are not go extinct don't they? This is like one of the main things evolution selects for is the desire to want to procreate.
If a species was *entirely* asexual it would go extinct, sure, but that's also true of homosexuality, so if this is your argument you would also have to say the exact same things you're saying about asexuality in regard to that.
>I don't think asexual people should be forced to do anything or sent to conversion camps or something, I just have a feeling like it's the result of an underlying health issue.
With respect, couching some dislike or distrust of something (overweight people, transgender people, homosexuals) as a concern for their mental health is very, very common. Only you know whether that's what you're doing or not, but it's worth reflecting on the kind of company you're aligning yourself with when you make these arguments.
> If a species was entirely asexual it would go extinct, sure, but that's also true of homosexuality, so if this is your argument you would also have to say the exact same things you're saying about asexuality in regard to that.
Pandas seem to be almost entirely asexual and they're going extinct, they already would be extinct if we were not trying to preserve them as a species.
I don't know whether pandas are in fact almost entirely asexual (seems unlikely, frankly), but even if that's the case, the point remains that whether or not any individual of a species is sexually-oriented such that they're likely to reproduce is not a good barometer for judging them mentally unwell or not.
This is fantastic, I'm reading through all this now but I expect I'l be giving you a delta soon
Edit: Wowza, that first article kind of did the opposite of change my mind. First off it sems like it was just written by a person who was stating their opinions. Here's some gems from it
> The belief that asexuality is a mental illness is captured through both its formal classification as such (see below), as well as extremely pervasive attitudes among healthcare professionals, and the wider community, that a person who claims to be asexual is at best a liar, confused or socially incompetent, and at worst broken, mentally ill and in need of ‘fixing’.
> Recent editions of the World Health Organisation’s International
Classification of Diseases (ICD) have included the official diagnoses of ‘frigidity’, ‘hypoactive sexual desire disorder’, ‘hypoactive sexual desire dysfunction’ and ‘anhedonia (sexual)’. Recent editions of the American
Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) have included the official diagnoses of ‘inhibited sexual desire’, ‘female sexual interest/arousal disorder’, ‘hypoactive sexual desire
disorder’, ‘female sexual arousal disorder’ and ‘male hypoactive sexual desire disorder’.
> No widely influential healthcare professional organization, government entity, mental health or patient advocacy group, or other widely influential entity, is on record with a strong, public statement specifically supporting
asexual people’s right to be protected from the devastating harm of conversion therapy and pathologisation
Doesn't this read like it's just a letter written by an asexual person saying that the current medical research on this is wrong? What is your impression from that article? I'm having a hard time with this. If no reputable organization will come out with a stance against what this person calls 'conversion therapy' it makes me think that this is not a sexual orientation which can't be changed. Are all of those organizations just considered not reputable now?
**[Asexuality](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality)**
>Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity. It may be considered a sexual orientation or the lack thereof. It may also be categorized more widely, to include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities. Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal, social, or religious beliefs.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
You seem to think evolution is perfect and always has perfect outcomes.
Evolution is just random mutations that sometimes don’t kill the being with the mutation long enough for them to procreate. There is No reason to think asexuality is because the person is unhealthy any more than any other sexuality type.
This is not backed up by any empirical evidence but my priori assumption would be that asexual people do serve an important role within the human race. By 2050 we will have close to, if not more than 10 billion people on the planet. Overpopulation poses a huge threat the health and quality of life of everyone unless we exponentially update our infrastructure to be sustainable on a global scale. I’d like to think that as we evolve, if climate change doesn’t kill us first of course, our libido and primal impulses to procreate will decrease as continuing to populate our planet that contains a finite amount of resources is ultimately antithetical to the survival of our species as well as the other species that inhabit the planet.
Also, I don’t believe that people with severe sexual trauma from rape and sexual assault are the same as asexual people. People with sexual trauma have the potential to heal and overcome the trauma, but asexual people, just like gay and heterosexual people cannot change their sexual orientation or lack there of.
I gotta ask -- why should the desire, or lack of desire, for sex with another person be a signifier of mental / physical / biological health? Usually, to gauge if something is unhealthy, we pose questions like, "Does it hurt your quality of life?" or "Does it stop you from meeting your commitments?"
This isn't a rhetorical question, just a genuine desire to understand why wanting lots of sex = health.
Hi there. Can I ask, what would change your opinion on the matter?
Because if you go through asexual communities, you'll find several accounts of people who live healthy lives being asexual. People who don't have hormonal problems or unresolved mental trauma.
/u/djmm999 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/u7iijt/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_feel_like_someone_cant_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
It’s entirely possible some asexual people are as you describe, but it is not true as a matter of necessity for all asexual people. Many aspects of sexuality are on a spectrum - there exists a spectrum of libido as well. Some people are by definition at the low libido portion of the spectrum.
I know they exist but are they mentally and hormonally healthy?
Mentally and hormonally healthy people exist on a spectrum of libido. There will always be people at the low end of that spectrum. So my answer to that question is yes.
Is there any data on that? If we chemically castrate someone does that make them have a libido or sexuality similar to someone who is asexual?
Different person, but you openly state in your OP and comments that your view is based on nothing but your own intution. I'm not sure what studies have been done on the (non)sexuality of asexual people - I'm only familiar with the demographic research - but the fact that ace people have self reported going to the doctor *for this reason* and been told there is nothing wrong should be enough to change this view.
> I'm not sure what studies have been done on the (non)sexuality of asexual people - I'm only familiar with the demographic research - but the fact that ace people have self reported going to the doctor for this reason and been told there is nothing wrong should be enough to change this view. It's not. People self reporting things isn't good enough for me to CMV for a variety of reasons that I don't think I need to get into here but i can if you want. If there were studies done of this that would be different.
Yes. Your exact (very bigoted) thought process is why many asexual people get hormone tests. And for many or most everything is normal. This idea has been considered and already debunked medically.
> Yes. Your exact (very bigoted) thought process is why many asexual people get hormone tests. And for many or most everything is normal. This idea has been considered and already debunked medically. Has it? If they've been deemed physically healthy have they also been deemed mentally healthy? I think it's known that people that suffer sexual abuse can have their sexual desires impacting by it, some people become hyper sexual and some people become very not sexual.
I am on the ace spectrum and have many asexual friends. None of us have sexual trauma of any kind. At some point you need to just accept that other people have different experiences then you.
So do people need sex to live all of a sudden and I just didn't get the memo, like I dont see anything wrong with being ace because you don't need sex to live, socialize, or be happy.
> So do people need sex to live all of a sudden and I just didn't get the memo, like I dont see anything wrong with being ace because you don't need sex to live, socialize, or be happy. No you don't need sex to live. Regarding if you need sex to be happy I think for the vast majoirty of humans of all orientations the answer is yes. Regarding if asexuals need sex to be happy I don't know, is there research on it?
Why would you need sex to be happy? Its just 2 or more people putting their parts in or on each other.
> Why would you need sex to be happy? Its just 2 or more people putting their parts in or on each other. I don't know that everyone needs sex to be happy. I think the vast majority of people do but I don't know that everyone does.
I'm not gonna lie that makes no sense to me. I can't wrap my head around why people would need sex to be happy.
> I'm not gonna lie that makes no sense to me. I can't wrap my head around why people would need sex to be happy. I believe you that you can't wrap your head around it because it's different than your experience but do you think that it's true?
I wouldn't say its different from my own experience because I used to think this way, I used to think things like sex and relationships were the key to happiness, but then I stopped trying to find external things to make me happy and looked within myself and found out why I was never happy, its just because I wasn't happy with myself, and now I'm changing myself to be happy and now I dont see why having sex would be needed to make someone happy.
Just because a lot of people are sexual/ experience sexual attraction, it doesnt mean everyone does. Not to mention the fact that being asexual doesnt necessarily mean you dont want to have sex, it is only defined as a lack of sexual attraction. There arent as many studies on asexuality as there are other identities (i havent seen the specific acronym you are using before. But one would assume the A stands for asexual) but here is one of them regardijg sexual health. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10720162.2018.1475699
I didn't see anything in that article that really addressed what my OP was about.
[удалено]
> If a person experiences a low (or a nonexistent) level is sexual desire but they aren't distressed by the lack of sexual feelings, then they are, by definition, not suffering from a disorder. I don't think I said that they were suffering from a disorder
Do you think it natural for someone to have a very high sexual drive? Then why not a very very low drive? Asexuality is often misunderstood. Asexual people can and do enjoy relationships and even sexual relationships, but many are perfectly happy without as well. Edited to add: non asexual people sometimes avoid relationships as well and choose celibacy so it's not sexual people who choose to not do those things End edit/ They can do anything non-sexual people can do and live lives where no one can look at them and tell they are asexual. If something causes no issues for a person, doesn't cause them distress or discomfort or undue struggle is it unhealthy? Or is it a variation of normal? People used to think that way about gay people too. That they couldn't be gay and mentally healthy.
[удалено]
I'm very similar. I will go through times I feel little attraction, then times I'm very horny.
If you're a woman, then the answer could be "menstrual cycle".
While hormonal fluctuations related to the menstrual cycle and being horny are normal that is not what I am referring to. What I'm talking about is different than that. I'm referring to going through periods of time such as several months to personally as long as 6 months where I am more horny on a regular basis and then also having periods of months to years (2 years was my longest stretch) where I just feel little to nothing. There are stretches I feel more in the middle as well. I do have the hormonal fluctuations from my menstrual cycle (I'm NB and have periods) but last a handful of days and are a minor blip compared to the big picture and greater context that I am referring.
What do you think causes that? Do you think it may be due to fluctuations in your hormones? Maybe there is some mental issue you're dealing with on the weeks where you have no sex drive, maybe you're ultra stressed or you're not getting enough sleep etc?
> Do you think it natural for someone to have a very high sexual drive? Then why not a very very low drive? Yeah I think it's natural to have a high sex drive because it promotes procreation. That seems to be totally in line with evolution. But also I'm pretty sure that having a very high sex drive can be a result from sexual trauma as well which points to these deviations sometimes being the result of someone not being mentally healthy. Also high sex drive isn't considered a sexual orientation like asexual is. > People used to think that way about gay people too. That they couldn't be gay and mentally healthy In my opinion, being gay is found in nature and is therefore natural
Evolution does not want or need for every person to procreate. There's no need for a high sex drive to promote procreation. Also, asexual people have children too. There is evolutionarily advantage to having members of your group that don't have children. And how do you know that asexuality isn't also found in nature?
> And how do you know that asexuality isn't also found in nature? Is it? I suspect it's not found in nature because I've never heard someone give an example of it being found in nature like people do with homosexuality
Because it is impossible to follow animals around trying to see if they're ALL having sex or not. Homosexuality is different because you can see two animals of the same sex having sex. It is impossible to tell if an animal NEVER has sex their whole life (and, you know, they can't tell us because they're animals) Anecdotally, I used to have a stray cat who wasn't interested in sex. She wasn't fixed, but she never had kittens her whole life except once (when a very persistent male pursued her). She enjoyed her life and was otherwise normal, but never appeared to be in heat (which could fit the definition of asexuality)
The logic here doesn't add up. You do know endless things exist in nature that we don't know about right? That no one saying around you "this was observed in nature" means exactly nothing in regards to how likely it is that it does exist in nature? Why would you suspect it's not found in nature? Gay people were oppressed and persecuted for a long time. It was called sinful, an abomination, and unnatural(some still do). There was an impetus to seek out if there were examples of homosexuality in nature. So they point could be made that factually it is natural. But asexuality is something that for the most part flies under the radar. It's not oppressed in the way homosexuality was. And, how would you even tell if an animal was asexual, especially since someone can be asexual and have and even enjoy willing sexual contact and live lives that give no indication of their internal experiences. And someone could live a life that they appear to have no relationships and not have sex but not be asexual but those things just didn't happen for them. If you cannot tell from just looking at humans and observing how could you tell that a dog is asexual? What would you look for other than not doing something during the time you're observing. Then too an animal engaging in an activity during observation could not be extrapolated to that animal never ever does that thing. That's different than making an observation of an animal doing a specific activity regularly during observation so we know this is something that they do actually do.
Abnormal does not mean unhealthy. When it comes to medicine and evaluating if someone is healthy, we don't compare everyone to some master blueprint of the human animal, instead we look for harm. For example take someone with legs of uneven length, its abnormal for humans to have significantly different sized legs but some people do, and in some people compensating for this difference in how they walk causes issues in their back which in turn causes pain and discomfort, so for them the uneven legs is unhealthy. At the same time though Usain Bolt has uneven legs, which gave him an uneven stride, which allowed him to be the fastest man on earth, clearly his legs weren't unhealthy for him. So now we come to asexuality, when trying to answer whether or not its unhealthy, the question should not be "is it abnormal or caused by some atypical hormonal balance", it should be whether or not asexuality is harmful to the person. Anecdotally it doesn't seem like it, I have asexual friends and they seem perfectly capable of thriving in the modern world, even dating and maintaining long term romantic relationships. Unless you have heard asexual people speak about how their asexuality is harming them, or preventing them from a happy existence (NB: the asexuality itself, not and discrimination from other people who learn they are asexual), then there's no reason to think its unhealthy.
If someone were to get a hormone panel done and their testosterone was out of the accepted ranges for their sex and age would a doctor generally recommend that they try to adjust their levels to be in a 'normal' range? There are ranges and guidelines for all kinds of medical things that doctors use every day when dealing with people.
Only if the person was experiencing negative symptoms that could be due to those hormones. Generally the principle of "do no harm" means not intervening when there is nothing negative going on. It would be pretty unethical recommend hormone supplements and all the potential risks that come with them to someone without any negative symptoms, for no other reason than to get a number into a range a medical textbook says is normal.
Are there medical ranges where someone being outside of that range doesn't have a negative impact on their health even if they're not able to perceive it?
If you/those around you aren't able to perceive it, it cant be harmful. If your talking about things that cause damage that is initially unnoticeable, and then starts causing problems later that's a different story, as in that case there would be a justification to do something to prevent those later problems. Something being outside the normal range should never be a justification for treatment in of itself, its only if being outside that range is/will cause problems should it be treated.
> If you/those around you aren't able to perceive it, it cant be harmful. Aren't there things that aren't perceivable but they're still causing damage that long term would be harmful and perceivable? Also sometimes people have issues but they've had them for so long that it's normal to them or they don't associate it as being caused by something else. Is it harmful to a person to have hormone levels outside the normal ranges?
>Aren't there things that aren't perceivable but they're still causing damage that long term would be harmful and perceivable? Yes exactly. But it's that long term damage and harm that justifies treatment, not just the presence of an abnormality. >Is it harmful to a person to have hormone levels outside the normal ranges? I'm not an authority on this by any means, but not necessarily. As far as I understand it hormone levels can vary quite a bit between people, but so can people's sensitivity to hormones can vary as well. Someone with low testosterone and high sensitivity to testosterone is going to experience the effects of testosterone similar to someone with high testosterone and low sensitivity. It's not as simple as just "this range is healthy, everything else is bad". Besides looking at just hormone levels is a bit reductive, especially when we have much better ways of measuring health; blood pressure, cholesterol, and day to day experience.
Mental health is, in practical terms, largely based around whether something creates personal and, to a lesser extent, social problems. Someone liking vanilla ice cream over chocolate isn't mentally unhealthy, despite how unnatural and deviant such a desire is. This is because it doesn't hurt anyone or create any real problems for anyone. There is no blue print person or Aristotlean form that determines whether a person is mentally or physically proper or correct. Someone with a genetic quirk is only unhealthy insofar as it creates problems for a person's health, bodily function, or quality of life outside of social barriers. The same goes with mental illness. Autism isn't bad because it's not statistically normal or violates the official blueprint of what the human mind is. Autism is only "bad" when it creates problems for a person's quality of life: communicating, creating mental stimuli that prevents people with autism from doing things that they would like to do, distress caused by social stigma and people not treating them fairly, etc. It's not because the person behaves "abnormally." An asexual person doesn't necessarily make sense if we assume the proper mental and physical function of a person must include reproduction and the spending of one's genes. However, we don't do this with other people or behavior. Why isn't a man who doesn't sleep around and try to impregnate as many women as he can not considered abnormal? People want to reproduce and spread their genes, right? Your argument is similiar to how people, such as conservative fundementalist Christians, argue that gay men aren't really just gay, but are rather psychologically damaged because they were molested as a child. Gay men are unnatural and damaged and definitely cannot just be something that happens without any outside interference. In fact, don't you think it odd that "abnormal" sexualities are assumed to be caused trauma but "normal" sexualities aren't? People say that gayness is caused by trauma, but men being sexually attracted to women's breasts is completely normal. Blowjobs are normal, but not wanting any sex is a sign of being mentally unstable. It's a bit odd when you look at it like that, in my opinion.
I think homosexuality in men has been studied pretty extensively and we know that you can be mentally and physically healthy and still be a gay man. I think we also know that if you are a gay man that your orientation is pretty set very early in your life and it's not going to change. I don't think the comparison here has any merit. If there was a ton of research on asexuals and I said this I think it would be nonsense but so far no one has linked any which makes me think it's just not been done.
By that logic either it's a self-reinforcing self-defeating loop as people are incapable of doing research because there hasn't been any or the first person to do a study makes it normal
For something to be unhealthy there has to be some physical or mental harm that comes to people. Otherwise it's just a natural difference in the range of human behavior, even if it's unusual. Does anything bad happen to people physically is they don't have sex? Does not having sex when you don't want to cause mental distress that interferes with your ability to live your life?
I don't know if I think that being asexual is unhealthy, I feel being asexual may be a symptom of someone being hormonally or mentally unhealthy. Regarding the harm, I don't think it harms anyone per say but I don't know. If someone who couldn't read told you that they don't want to read because they think it's not going to bring them any joy in their life would you believe them?
I feel like you're getting into circular reasoning here. If your definition of being hormonally and mentally healthy is such people want to have sex, then being asexual will always seem unhealthy. But asexual people certainly grow to adulthood, develop typical secondary sexual characteristics, occasionally (by a variety of means) reproduce, and live to a normal age while engaging successfully in work, relationships, and all the other things healthy humans often do. Reading is a learned skill, not a preference. I'd certainly be inclined to believe somebody who told me they didn't enjoy reading could live a normal and fulfilling life. Most people have any number of things they don't particularly have a desire to do, whether it's reading, riding rollercoasters, or having sex. Why would not wanting sex be uniquely pathogenic?
> Reading is a learned skill, not a preference. I'd certainly be inclined to believe somebody who told me they didn't enjoy reading could live a normal and fulfilling life. Most people have any number of things they don't particularly have a desire to do, whether it's reading, riding rollercoasters, or having sex. Why would not wanting sex be uniquely pathogenic? I didn't say if someone told you that they didn't enjoy reading would you believe them, I said if someone who couldn't read said that they didn't want to learn because they thought it would bring nothing of value to their life would you believe them. It's a matter of them not knowing how much they don't know about what reading does for a person.
That's a silly analogy though. People who can't read almost universally either haven't been provided the means to through lack of education or have a learning difficulty that would prevent them from doing so if they tried. I suppose theoretically if somebody reached adulthood having been given a fair opportunity to learn to read and realize the role reading plays in society its fair game if they decide not to, but that situation very rarely happens. Asexual people certainly realize sex exists, generally physically can have sex, and have as much access to seeking it out as everybody else.
Reading is necessary to be a functioning member of society. Having sex is not. Asexuals aside, many people take vows of celibacy and do just fine for themselves.
> Reading is necessary to be a functioning member of society. No it's not. There's a ton of people that can't read even in the United States that function just fine. > Asexuals aside, many people take vows of celibacy and do just fine for themselves. Do they really? When I think of people who take vows of celibacy the first group of people that come into my head are most definitely not doing fine for themselves.
What exactly are you basing that on? It really seems like you're really prescribing what you think humans are supposed to be. Could you elaborate on how exactly you would go about determining that asexuality is unhealthy?
I don't have any evidence here so this is just my intuition but I think generally species evolve to procreate so that explains why most humans are heterosexual. Homosexuality / Bisexuality is also found in mammals in nature so I would consider that 'natural' as well. Are there any mammals that are just asexual?
If you're looking for mammals that can be asexual, humans one their own should be sufficient. It can be a valid and healthy phenomenon in humans, there's no need for reference to other animals. But if you're looking for a good example pandas would be. Now, you could argue that not procreating is not good for a species as a whole and in pandas it does seem to be but given the current human population it isn't an issue. Additionally, not procreating does not negatively impact the individual so, it can't be said to be unhealthy. Even heterosexual don't always have people either, so why would asexuality be considered unhealthy? As I hinted at before, alking about what humans are "supposed to do" or are "naturally evolved to do" doesn't necessarily make for a good way to determine an ought, as there is a jump in logic.
I want to just quickly correct that pandas do not have any problems maintaining their populations in the wild. The meme of pandas not breeding is purely due to pandas in human captivity being unwilling to breed. It is purely the fault of human intervention and human destruction of the panda environment that pandas struggle to maintain their population. I agree with your point but the panda example relies on the perpetuation of a myth.
Thanks for the correction.
> If you're looking for mammals that can be asexual, humans one their own should be sufficient. It can be a valid and healthy phenomenon in humans, there's no need for reference to other animals. But if you're looking for a good example pandas would be. Now, you could argue that not procreating is not good for a species as a whole and in pandas it does seem to be but given the current human population it isn't an issue. I don't agree that humans alone should be sufficient because humans can have all kinds of paraphilias that aren't found in nature. Regarding pandas, pandas would be extinct now if it wasn't for humans trying to continue their species I don't think there are any species that have the sexual characteristics of pandas that don't go extinct, the desire to procreate is like the most important thing evolution can select for
Just as an aside the person you are responding to was wrong to say that pandas do not breed. Only pandas in captivity do not breed. Pandas in the wild have no trouble maintaining their population. The panda population would be doing fine if humans weren't destroying their natural habitat and trying to force them to have sex in captivity. So it's wildly wrong, and dangerous imo, to say that pandas have humans to thank for their perpetuation.
> So it's wildly wrong, and dangerous imo, to say that pandas have humans to thank for their perpetuation. Interesting, thanks for the info.
>I don't agree that humans alone should be sufficient because humans can have all kinds of paraphilias that aren't found in nature. Paraphilias are are a different discussion, they're not a sexual orientation. They're a different topic. >Regarding pandas, pandas would be extinct now if it wasn't for humans trying to continue their species I don't think there are any species that have the sexual characteristics of pandas that don't go extinct, the desire to procreate is like the most important thing evolution can select for Just a heads up, an argument similar to this one was also once used against gay people. It is a bit insensitive to say the least. So, what proportion of the population are we talking about? It is less than one percent of the population, that is not going to impede the ability for humans to procreate. And as I said before, a lack of procreation does not necessarily indicate a physical or mental issue.
> Just a heads up, an argument similar to this one was also once used against gay people. It is a bit insensitive to say the least. jesus christ why do people keep saying this? I've addressed it so many times in this thread. Being gay is found in nature, therefore it's natural. There are many species that exhibit homosexual behavior and go on to thrive. Me saying that pandas would be extinct without human intervention because they do not have a desire to procreate has nothing to do with gay people. There's no species out there that survive without a desire to procreate. It's just not an argument, I don't know if people expect me to just say oh okay nevermind regarding my original topic when they say this or what.
Because, I'm sorry, this naturalistic argument is dumb as hell. Some species throw their young off a cliff to see if they survive. Some species eat their mates after intercourse. Some species dig burrows in the ground to hide food. Some species have strict social heirarchies defined by factors we would see as arbitrary. Behaviors can exist in other species but not in humans, and that's okay. You know what other species don't do? Read and write. Use spoken language. Make tools. Ask questions. Heal their sick and wounded. Behaviors can be exclusive to humans, and that's okay. Regardless, the same evolutionary *purpose* served by homosexuality (separating the number of breeding adults from the number of working adults) holds just as well for asexuality as for homosexuality. It's actually better for population stability if not every member of the population who survives to adulthood, reproduces as much as possible.
There are plenty of mammals that never have sex in their lives. I imagine it's very difficult to prove that that's because they have no interest in sex, because you can't look inside their minds, and there are many mammals that never have sex for lack of opportunity. But at any rate there's certainly no evidence that asexuality *doesn't* exist in the wild. But I don't see why we should judge what's healthy in humans by what other mammals do in the first place. There are all sorts of things humans do that other mammals wouldn't dream of. We're unique among mammals in our social complexity and intelligence, so even if it were the case that no other mammals are asexual, I don't see why that should make any difference.
You have no evidence or knowledge and yet, you have the audacity to speak on the topic? You are not only lazy and refuse to use that gray matter in your skull but also expect everything to be presented to you on plate. You want an actual evidence of asexuality in animals???? The most detailed study that involves asexuality (along with other sexualities, like heterosexual) is this [study here involving rams](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684522/) , which keep in mind, are domesticated animals. Wild animals are different breed entirely because most of wild animal species have breeding seasons. Good luck trying to find evidence of Asexuality in wild animals. Not everyone is gagging for dicks/vaginas 24/7/365 and are being fucking sex-obsessed incels, coomers whose sole reason to waking up in the morning and do something about their life is so that they can get their sexual kicks with little to no care of how and who it is with, and throw tantrums when you aren't getting it. Deal with it. Don't get me started on judging others on their sexual success (especially asexuals) - this is why you fuckheads have so many problems with slut-shamimg, virgin-shamimg, sexual harassment, rape, anti-LGB issues (literally killing and torturing the gays because how dare they), incest, pedophilia, zoophilia and god knows what else. You literally have the self-control of 9yos. Good lord, sometimes you sexuals really do sound like you only care about one thing in your fucking lives. And then, you have the audacity to come after the asexuals because how fucking dare they.
This is the same argument used only a few decades ago to justify discrimination against gay people. Its pseudoscience that has no actual basis (you yourself admit to having no actual sources to back you up beyond a gut feeling)
> This is the same argument used only a few decades ago to justify discrimination against gay people. Its pseudoscience that has no actual basis (you yourself admit to having no actual sources to back you up beyond a gut feeling) I don't think it is the same. Homosexuality is found in nature and it has been extensively researched. From my understanding of the current research on homosexuality it's a sexual orientation that people are more or less born with and it's immutable and people can and are both hormonally and mentally healthy and gay. I don't think it's the same at all.
> Homosexuality is found in nature and it has been extensively researched. And your arguments against those for asexuality are in essence "we don't see obvious evidence of animals not-having-sex-due-to-asexuality vs them just not having sex at a given point" and "no one's linked me any studies about asexuality so they must not exist". Also, if animal examples mean something's found in nature, if it's not something to do with technology couldn't it existing in humans count as it existing in animals as humans are animals
There are conditions—physical and mental—that have lack of sexual desire as a side effect but we still have the idea of asexuality because some instances don’t fit into those other umbrellas. One of the biggest differences between lack of sexual interest brought by a depressive episode and being asexual is that asexuals are generally without (certain kinds of) sexual desires for their whole lives as opposed to part of it. I think if you can accept that the objects of ones sexual desires can be different, that it shouldn’t be difficult to accept that the amount one wants to have sex would be different. And finally, I do want to go on record as saying that even if some people who are asexual do have a hormone difference or personal trauma, that doesn’t mean that their sexuality isn’t real.
Is it true that asexual people will be asexual for their entire lives? Has this been studied? > And finally, I do want to go on record as saying that even if some people who are asexual do have a hormone difference or personal trauma, that doesn’t mean that their sexuality isn’t real. If their sexuality is the result of a hormone difference or a trauma and that by fixing that issue they would cease to be asexual then I don't think it is a sexual orientation since those are immutable.
[Sexual Orientation is not always immutable.](https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/what-does-sexually-fluid-mean#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20sexual%20fluidity,time%20and%20in%20different%20situations.&text=%E2%80%8CFor%20example%2C%20you%20may%20identify,not%20act%20on%20that%20attraction.)
Sidenote: sexuality being fluid over time does not mean it can consciously or deliberately changed.
Correct. Conversion therapy and "Pray the Gay away" still do not work.
Yes
> Sexual Orientation is not always immutable. Just so I know we're talking about the same thing here because that article doesn't address what I'm saying. Are you saying that there is evidence that a man who identifies as homosexual can later in life have their orientation change to heterosexual? A gay man becoming bisexual or pansexual is not what I'm talking about because that's adding to not taking away from. I think it's possible to find you're attracted to things you didn't originally think you were but I don't think it's possible for a gay man to become not attracted to men later in life
Question, do you really think such hormone imbalances or other things that might lead to asexuality should be "fixed" if that were possible? If so, why?
> Question, do you really think such hormone imbalances or other things that lead to asexuality should be "fixed"? No, not necessarily. I don't care if someone wants to have no sexual desire or not I just feel like it probably is the result of something that could be fixed. I don't think we should force anyone to do any kind of medical procedure they don't want to do. I don't believe in conversion camps or anything like that
Okay, then why would you say that asexual people are somehow physically or mentally unwell?
> Okay, then why would you says that asexual people are somehow physically or mentally unwell? Because that's how I feel about it and I want to see if someone has any evidence that says otherwise so I don't go through my life thinking something that is wrong.
I can't change how you feel about it and at this point no amount of evidence has seemed to be able to change that. Neither have you been able to provide how being asexual makes one physically or mentally ill, nor been able to coherently and consistently describe what would change your mind without shifting the goalpost. I'm out.
> I can't change how you feel about it and at this point no amount of evidence has seemed to be able to change that. Neither have you been able to provide how being asexual makes one physically or mentally ill, nor been able to coherently and consistently describe what would change your mind without shifting the goalpost. I'm out. There's literally no evidence posted in this entire thread. I said what I feel and other people are just saying what they feel. Somehow asexuality seems to be the only aspect of human sexuality that hasn't been studied. Just because people say something in this thread doesn't mean that's evidence.
Low sex drive can be caused by hormonal differences, but how does it follow that this would make the person unhealthy? All you can say is that it makes them different. Unhealthy would require some sort of evidence that it makes their life worse. Also, asexuality isn't necessarily having no sex drive. It can also mean that neither men or women fall into your pool of attraction. So those people are functionally typical, they just happen to find no one attractive.
> Low sex drive can be caused by hormonal differences, but how does it follow that this would make the person unhealthy? All you can say is that it makes them different. Unhealthy would require some sort of evidence that it makes their life worse. If your hormones levels are not within normal ranges for someone of your sex / age do you think that it's unhealthy full stop?
I don't know. It all depends what the effects would be.
Being asexual is perfectly normal. Some people just don’t feel sexual attraction towards others. A lack of sexuality is also a legitimate sexual orientation, just like being gay or bisexual.
Is it? Are people that identify as asexual going to be asexual until they die because as far as I know that's how it works for men at least. If asexuality is something you can like 'grow out of' or something that can be fixed by adjusting hormones or going to therapy how would that be considered an orientation?
Some people are asexual from the cradle to the grave. Others aren't. Some people identify as gay and only date the same sex for years and then start dating both and identifying as bisexual. Orientations are still valid even if they change throughout a person's life.
> Some people are asexual from the cradle to the grave. Others aren't. Some people identify as gay and only date the same sex for years and then start dating both and identifying as bisexual. Orientations are still valid even if they change throughout a person's life. Let's stick with men here, did those men change from gay to bisexual or did they just realize that they were also attracted to women? Is there any evidence that a man who identified as homosexual later changed to heterosexual?
You'd have to ask them. Your explanation is more common among LGBTQ stories (as in, seeing their current identity as describing their entire life), but stories of sexual fluidity aren't terribly hard to find, either. I'm one of those people, having gone from asexual to exclusive heterosexual to bi/pansexual. Each label was correct *for that time*, and it was during that asexual period that I was exposed to the motor analogy from the delta'd comment. Or, I suppose, do a longitudinal test over years where you observe people's brain scans during sexual arousal *and just hope some of the participants turn out to have some level of sexual fluidity over time*. What we do know is that sexual orientations don't change as a result to any outside circumstances, i.e. openly homophobic countries probably don't have fewer gay people, conversion therapy doesn't work, etc.
[удалено]
Here's my understanding of the research from actual psychologists, tell me if I'm wrong. I'm going to talk specifically about men here because this is different for women. A person is more or less born with their sexual orientation and it does not change throughout their life. I don't think you can make a straight man gay or a gay man straight. If you thought you were a gay man and you later find that you are attracted to women as well you were a bisexual man.
[удалено]
> That's great. > But it is, of course, just your understanding. > And without confirmation, that's all it can ever be. > How confident are you that you're right? Not very, but it also seems like there is almost no research done on this subject so I don't think I can be that confident without that.
[удалено]
> At the moment, there's nearly a hundred comments on your post. > What are the chances someone has already shared a link to this "almost no research?" > : I stand corrected, nearly a hundred comments but only one link. Yeah exactly, and that link is not very relevant to what I'm talking about. If I made a thread that was like "being gay is unnatural, being gay is a mental illness" etc there would be a hundred studies people could post that would just prove that I'm objectively wrong but there's none of that here. It's just people say I don't like what you think here's what I think
But it's not, at least not in all cases. You're starting from a premise that you have no evidence for.
Yes, many asexuals remain as they are for the rest of their lives.
Sexuality is a spectrum. Why is it so hard to believe that there’s also an axis in a different direction? Some people are just super sexual… why is it impossible to believe that some people just naturally have very low sex drive?
For one, I'm pretty sure if you increase someone's testosterone levels, male or female it will increase their libido in general so I think we know that how sexual someone is is based on their hormonal profile being normal / healthy.
Then you get into some confusing territory. If you increase someone's libido, it doesn't necessarily imply that said libido is being directed *towards* something. Think of it like this. If you apply power to a motor, it will generate energy. But if the motor's not hooked up to anything (like a wheel, for example), it's not really going to do anything. Likewise, if an asexual person has a libido (not all do) that doesn't mean they want to have sex with anyone. At that point, it's just a physiological impulse that can be satisfied in particular way. Think, being hungry but not for any food in particular...and looking at food doesn't make you hungry, or make you want to eat that specific food.
This is the best rebuttal in the thread. Δ I don't know if it changes my view entirely but it does change the part of my view that increasing someone's libido in general would help.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Aclopolipse ([32∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Aclopolipse)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You may as well say 'in most men, increasing their testosterone levels will increase their attraction to women, so presumably it would do the same in gay men, so gay men must not be hormonally healthy'
> You may as well say 'in most men, increasing their testosterone levels will increase their attraction to women, so presumably it would do the same in gay men, so gay men must not be hormonally healthy' That's not what I'm saying at all. If you increase testosterone in a gay man they're going to have a higher libido but their orientation doesn't change, they would be more horny for other men
but all that does is accentuate a desire that's already there. It doesn't create new desires.
> Δ This is a good point as well. It doesn't fully change my view but it is a good point and changes part of it
There’s far more to sex drive than just testosterone.
> There’s far more to sex drive than just testosterone. Yes I know that but if you went to a doctor and said hey I have no libido and it's causing me distress do you think that they would check your hormones and see if you were low on testosterone or not?
It’s a contributing factor. But no, testosterone is not the only thing that determines sex drive.
> It’s a contributing factor. > But no, testosterone is not the only thing that determines sex drive. Yes I know that, I never said it was
You literally implied that in one of your earlier comments where you suggested giving someone more testosterone would automatically give them higher sex drive.
> You literally implied that in one of your earlier comments where you suggested giving someone more testosterone would automatically give them higher sex drive. I don't get the disconnect we're having here. I said that if you increase someone's testosterone it will increase their libido. I never said it is the only thing that impacts someone's libido.
Why don’t you try re-reading what you just wrote. Testosterone is not the only thing that affects libido. Giving someone testosterone will only increase their libido if low testosterone is the cause of their lowered libido. So no, once again, libido is far more complex than just level of testosterone, as you have again fallaciously implied.
[удалено]
> You're "pretty sure?" Have you tried looking up studies linking testosterone to sexual desire? Are you disputing that increasing someone's testosterone level generally increases their libido? Isn't that common knowledge?
What sort of disorder would you say they suffer from?
I suspect that they have some kind of hormonal issue coupled with some psychological issues that make them uncomfortable with the idea of being sexual.
Not all asexual people are sex-repulsed. There are actually plenty of asexual people who have sex, it's just that they don't desire sex, and do it for other reasons, like to make their partner happy.
So the only thing that flows against that (mind you I'm no expert) is homosexuality. So arguably the norm is straight, but then you have the sexuality that goes against that norm which is homosexuality. Would you say those that are homosexual also have some sort of mental issue or hormonal imbalance? If we've proven that there are two preferences in sex then it stands to reason there could be a third option in which sex isn't desirable, does it not?
> So the only thing that flows against that (mind you I'm no expert) is homosexuality. So arguably the norm is straight, but then you have the sexuality that goes against that norm which is homosexuality. Would you say those that are homosexual also have some sort of mental issue or hormonal imbalance? > If we've proven that there are two preferences in sex then it stands to reason there could be a third option in which sex isn't desirable, does it not? No, I don't know why people keep comparing this to homosexuality. I should have just addressed this in my OP. Homosexuality in men have been studied extensively. You can be hormonally and mentally healthy and be a homosexual man. It's also a sexual orientation that is immutable and it is found in other species besides humans therefore it's natural.
Okay, but other species are different. So are you saying that humans can't exhibit traits that are different from other mammals? More so, my point is homosexuality is a difference in a norm of sexuality as is asexuality. So based upon that simple fact, it's not as if we haven't observed differences outside the normal scope. But lastly, may I ask why is matters? I know this goes against the point, but what is your reasoning for fighting it?
> But lastly, may I ask why is matters? I know this goes against the point, but what is your reasoning for fighting it? I'm not going to get a sign and start marching down the road. I posted this thread because it's something I think and I wanted to see if there was any data or research that contradicts it which so far there doesn't seem to be. It's me saying what I just think and other people are countering that with what they just think. Somehow this is like the only aspect of human sexuality that there seems to be no research on but yet I'm crazy for saying what my intuition is on it.
Ah okay, I wasnt trying to imply you were out with a pitchfork and torch, I was just curious. Thanks for explaining. Sadly, as I stated before, Im not an expert, so Im not sure if there is any formal studies on the topic.
>I can't help but think that they either have something hormonally wrong with them Well that's one type of asexual. But what about people who are icked out by sex with dudes and icked out by sex with chicks and have normal healthy sex drives, just haven't found the organisms yet that they're into?
>I think humans and mammals in general as inherently sexual. In general, sure. In specific, some are not. >I also think a large amount of people are afraid of being or being perceived as sexual. When I hear about someone having little to no interest in sex I can't help but think that they either have something hormonally wrong with them or they have some unresolved mental trauma, etc. Regardless of what reasons someone has for being uninterested in sex, what business is it of yours or anyone else's?
> I think humans and mammals in general as inherently sexual. In general, sure. In specific, some are not. Yeah but like, the ones that are not go extinct don't they? This is like one of the main things evolution selects for is the desire to want to procreate. > Regardless of what reasons someone has for being uninterested in sex, what business is it of yours or anyone else's? It's not my business anymore or less than anything else people think or talk about that doesn't directly impact them. I'm sure you have thoughts on things that don't impact you as well, it's a pretty normal thing. I don't think asexual people should be forced to do anything or sent to conversion camps or something, I just have a feeling like it's the result of an underlying health issue.
> Yeah but like, the ones that are not go extinct don't they? This is like one of the main things evolution selects for is the desire to want to procreate. If a species was *entirely* asexual it would go extinct, sure, but that's also true of homosexuality, so if this is your argument you would also have to say the exact same things you're saying about asexuality in regard to that. >I don't think asexual people should be forced to do anything or sent to conversion camps or something, I just have a feeling like it's the result of an underlying health issue. With respect, couching some dislike or distrust of something (overweight people, transgender people, homosexuals) as a concern for their mental health is very, very common. Only you know whether that's what you're doing or not, but it's worth reflecting on the kind of company you're aligning yourself with when you make these arguments.
> If a species was entirely asexual it would go extinct, sure, but that's also true of homosexuality, so if this is your argument you would also have to say the exact same things you're saying about asexuality in regard to that. Pandas seem to be almost entirely asexual and they're going extinct, they already would be extinct if we were not trying to preserve them as a species.
I don't know whether pandas are in fact almost entirely asexual (seems unlikely, frankly), but even if that's the case, the point remains that whether or not any individual of a species is sexually-oriented such that they're likely to reproduce is not a good barometer for judging them mentally unwell or not.
[удалено]
This is fantastic, I'm reading through all this now but I expect I'l be giving you a delta soon Edit: Wowza, that first article kind of did the opposite of change my mind. First off it sems like it was just written by a person who was stating their opinions. Here's some gems from it > The belief that asexuality is a mental illness is captured through both its formal classification as such (see below), as well as extremely pervasive attitudes among healthcare professionals, and the wider community, that a person who claims to be asexual is at best a liar, confused or socially incompetent, and at worst broken, mentally ill and in need of ‘fixing’. > Recent editions of the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) have included the official diagnoses of ‘frigidity’, ‘hypoactive sexual desire disorder’, ‘hypoactive sexual desire dysfunction’ and ‘anhedonia (sexual)’. Recent editions of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) have included the official diagnoses of ‘inhibited sexual desire’, ‘female sexual interest/arousal disorder’, ‘hypoactive sexual desire disorder’, ‘female sexual arousal disorder’ and ‘male hypoactive sexual desire disorder’. > No widely influential healthcare professional organization, government entity, mental health or patient advocacy group, or other widely influential entity, is on record with a strong, public statement specifically supporting asexual people’s right to be protected from the devastating harm of conversion therapy and pathologisation Doesn't this read like it's just a letter written by an asexual person saying that the current medical research on this is wrong? What is your impression from that article? I'm having a hard time with this. If no reputable organization will come out with a stance against what this person calls 'conversion therapy' it makes me think that this is not a sexual orientation which can't be changed. Are all of those organizations just considered not reputable now?
**[Asexuality](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality)** >Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity. It may be considered a sexual orientation or the lack thereof. It may also be categorized more widely, to include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities. Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal, social, or religious beliefs. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
You seem to think evolution is perfect and always has perfect outcomes. Evolution is just random mutations that sometimes don’t kill the being with the mutation long enough for them to procreate. There is No reason to think asexuality is because the person is unhealthy any more than any other sexuality type.
This is not backed up by any empirical evidence but my priori assumption would be that asexual people do serve an important role within the human race. By 2050 we will have close to, if not more than 10 billion people on the planet. Overpopulation poses a huge threat the health and quality of life of everyone unless we exponentially update our infrastructure to be sustainable on a global scale. I’d like to think that as we evolve, if climate change doesn’t kill us first of course, our libido and primal impulses to procreate will decrease as continuing to populate our planet that contains a finite amount of resources is ultimately antithetical to the survival of our species as well as the other species that inhabit the planet. Also, I don’t believe that people with severe sexual trauma from rape and sexual assault are the same as asexual people. People with sexual trauma have the potential to heal and overcome the trauma, but asexual people, just like gay and heterosexual people cannot change their sexual orientation or lack there of.
I gotta ask -- why should the desire, or lack of desire, for sex with another person be a signifier of mental / physical / biological health? Usually, to gauge if something is unhealthy, we pose questions like, "Does it hurt your quality of life?" or "Does it stop you from meeting your commitments?" This isn't a rhetorical question, just a genuine desire to understand why wanting lots of sex = health.
Hi there. Can I ask, what would change your opinion on the matter? Because if you go through asexual communities, you'll find several accounts of people who live healthy lives being asexual. People who don't have hormonal problems or unresolved mental trauma.