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)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2013-04-09 05:30 pm (UTC)