The trouble with tribbles.
Apr. 3rd, 2013 03:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hoveringsombreroThe problem I have with aesexuality (and all its related terms; aromantic, demisexual, etc), is that it requires a base assumption of normal sexuality.
The only place in which we can derive a baseline normality from solid, measurable data (i.e., not societal), is medically. And when you're talking about a deviation from the norm in sexual interest/activity in terms of medical data, you're dealing with a hormone imbalance or a mental issue, or both! Often both. Humans require a ridiculous, specifically balanced soup of hormones and chemicals to have emotions, form attachments, and even think clearly. When something is out of whack this can result in a deviation from YOUR norm of sexual function activity.
However, the way these terms are used in a matter of self-identification, is with the assumption that there is nothing physically or mentally wrong.
This is where it gets sticky, because for this to be the case we then have to accept that there is a baseline normal of sexual attraction/interest apart from, or not dictated by our hormones/chemicals. Which I don't believe there is. In my life I have been absolutely everywhere on the spectrum, much of it dictated by hormones and past trauma, sure, some of it just because. And THAT is normal. This paragraph is badly written, and I'm not sure how to write it better. So I'll just try to clarify. Emotions, sexuality, feelings, are impossible to separate in function from our hormones and such, because they are the end result of what are hormones and chemicals and electrical impulses, etc, are doing. So, what I'm saying is that one can be medically textbook normal, and still have a wildly differing range of emotions, sex drive, feelings, and so forth. This is still badly written, I'm not sure it's saying what I want it to.
Anyway, continuing on, one could argue that sociological data is/can be solid measurable data, so we can derive an approximation of what is normal, and then we have an issue with the vilification of the abnormal. Which is problematic as even the most healthy, well-adjusted person does not live their entire lives within said normal spectrum. And when you define a thing as abnormal, when it is a thing that is even a little bit tied to emotions, even once instance of experiencing said abnormality can shake a person's self-image.
TL;DR This is a lot of words to say,people are people, people are erratic, confused, conflicted, happy, sad, frigid, horny, uncomfortable, ecstatic, and so forth. We are exactly like every one else, and we are completely different to everyone else. I don't like defining my sexuality in regards to what bits I'm attracted to either, so this is likely just pedantic whinging.
The only place in which we can derive a baseline normality from solid, measurable data (i.e., not societal), is medically. And when you're talking about a deviation from the norm in sexual interest/activity in terms of medical data, you're dealing with a hormone imbalance or a mental issue, or both! Often both. Humans require a ridiculous, specifically balanced soup of hormones and chemicals to have emotions, form attachments, and even think clearly. When something is out of whack this can result in a deviation from YOUR norm of sexual function activity.
However, the way these terms are used in a matter of self-identification, is with the assumption that there is nothing physically or mentally wrong.
This is where it gets sticky, because for this to be the case we then have to accept that there is a baseline normal of sexual attraction/interest apart from, or not dictated by our hormones/chemicals. Which I don't believe there is. In my life I have been absolutely everywhere on the spectrum, much of it dictated by hormones and past trauma, sure, some of it just because. And THAT is normal. This paragraph is badly written, and I'm not sure how to write it better. So I'll just try to clarify. Emotions, sexuality, feelings, are impossible to separate in function from our hormones and such, because they are the end result of what are hormones and chemicals and electrical impulses, etc, are doing. So, what I'm saying is that one can be medically textbook normal, and still have a wildly differing range of emotions, sex drive, feelings, and so forth. This is still badly written, I'm not sure it's saying what I want it to.
Anyway, continuing on, one could argue that sociological data is/can be solid measurable data, so we can derive an approximation of what is normal, and then we have an issue with the vilification of the abnormal. Which is problematic as even the most healthy, well-adjusted person does not live their entire lives within said normal spectrum. And when you define a thing as abnormal, when it is a thing that is even a little bit tied to emotions, even once instance of experiencing said abnormality can shake a person's self-image.
TL;DR This is a lot of words to say,people are people, people are erratic, confused, conflicted, happy, sad, frigid, horny, uncomfortable, ecstatic, and so forth. We are exactly like every one else, and we are completely different to everyone else. I don't like defining my sexuality in regards to what bits I'm attracted to either, so this is likely just pedantic whinging.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 12:33 am (UTC)With that definition, it doesn't mean asexuality is any more "abnormal" than heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. This is why a lot of asexual people say that "asexuality is a sexual orientation of NO, instead of NO sexual orientation".
no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 03:27 am (UTC)I had my hormones checked when I identified as asexual, and they were within normal range. (I know plenty of asexual people who will say the same.)
no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 04:16 am (UTC)Hormones are fine, still don't feel that your level of sexual whatever is normal? That is your normal, that's just sexuality, it does wtf it wants.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 04:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 11:19 pm (UTC)The aesexual term, as used commonly, as you and Rosa have reiterated, is an identity completely divorced from any hormonal or mental issues.
So, this requires that we (society in general) must have decided what a normal amount of sexual activity/attraction/desire is. This is the thing I have an issue with. Because if we've decided what this normal level is, and then defined aesexuality as a lower amount or complete absence thereof, this, then also, allows for a definition of hypersexuality, also devoid of hormonal or mental issues, so, existing separate from nymphomania and/or sex addiction. So we're accepting that there's hypersexuality, which, all too frequently, becomes slut shaming.
So, one could argue that aesexual and hypersexual exist on opposite ends of the spectrum which is normal sexuality, and that would be a definition I have absolutely no problem with, personally, though it could be simplified by saying that one is just sexual.
So yes, for the purposes of self-identification, the label of aesexual may be useful and helpful to some, but it's the reasoning which allows it to exist as such a label which is problematic to me.
As, again, if there's no hormonal or mental issues informing said actions, then neither the aesexual or the hypersexual are ABNORMAL. Agreeing on the apparent majority of sexual identity in the middle as normal, when the entire thing is normal sexual behaviour, is my beef.
This entire thing could be made moot if we'd agree that abnormal is not BAD, and I'm sure you and I WOULD agree with that. However, that is not the case in general, unfortunately, which is also part of my beef. If the abnormal in these sort of subjects was agreed by everyone NOT to be bad, it would seriously lower need for such labels to begin with.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 11:43 pm (UTC)Looking at asexuality as defining anything other than "what gender are you attracted to" would fall into that problem as defining something as normal or not. The majority of asexual people I have spoken to (and I have spent a lot of time on AVEN) do not consider themselves or their attraction abnormal. They think it's in the minority -- but so are any other sexual orientations that aren't "straight". The fact that you're insinuating that it's abnormal or being referred to as abnormal has me a bit on edge (so, I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a bit stiff).
The problem with saying that asexual and hypersexual are opposites is that it doesn't accurately reflect what asexuality means. Asexual people can have high libidos. Or low libidos. Or none. Asexual people can masturbate. A lot. Or not at all. Asexual people can even have sex -- can WANT to have sex. In the same way that there's nothing stopping a gay man from having sex with a woman, there's nothing stopping an asexual person from having sex with anyone. Both still have the capability of enjoying it without being "attracted" to the other person.
I think that you're referring to as asexuality here is in the DSM as "hypoactive sexual desire disorder" -- something that asexual activists have actually been working with doctors to change.
So, as I said the first time around "asexuality" is no different from other orientations. It describes what gender you're attracted to. Some people are attracted to no genders.
I do take issue with your implication that it's desirable to lower the need for labels, though. Labels are pretty important to a lot of people. If you find a label that fits your experience, you can find other people that identify themselves with that experience. And then you have a shared experience.
I like calling myself a homo-romantic trans-masculine grey-asexual non-binary person. I don't particularly care if people roll their eyes at the amount of labels I have for myself (and plenty of people do!).
no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 11:56 pm (UTC)And you've every right to be bothered by an insinuation that any sexual identification or behaviour that's willing and harms nobody, is abnormal. That insinuation is part of my issue. I think I get particularly prickly on that topic when it comes to disability, as it's apparently perfectly ok to pity me or look down on me because I'm "broken".
Yeah, again, I agree labels can be important and useful, I think what bothers me is when the need for them is driven by this idea that we have to justify our existence to others. To be quite honest, I've gotten more hostility from people who share my own personal labels, who decide I don't deserve them, for whatever reason.
I have a weird relationship with labels.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-04 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-09 05:30 pm (UTC)