201
Asexuality Is Finally Breaking Free from Medical Stigma
(www.scientificamerican.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
201 points (92.1% liked)
science
14594 readers
271 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's probably just an issue with oxytocin.
It does a lot of stuff, but what's important here is it's about social bonding. When it's not functioning correctly, you just never get lonely, you don't have the negatives from lack of social relationships including romantic.
Also, it's what make orgasms feel amazing. So without it, your getting rid of the two main positives for sexual relationships.
You might still enjoy the act of sex, you just don't get the huge addicting high at the end of it.
So it's at most a "sure, why not" thing compared to everyone else. And for some people, it's just not worth the hassle to varying degrees.
We also haven't identified any genetic markers, but there's likely some out there. And there's environmental issues when young that can effect it your whole life.
So we barely understand the "nurture" component and no idea about the "nature" side of things.
Edit:
Rather than keep responding to the same comments, please just scroll down for more information before replying.
I mean it's generally bad form to attempt to explain why someone is of a particular orientation. You don't say "well you're only gay because you have trauma," because that's fucked up and overtly reductive of a key aspect of their personality.
I don't experience sexual attraction. I still get horny. Orgasms feel great. I get lonely all the time, and still need social interaction. My experience is far from unique amongst asexual people. I don't think it's as simple as a single chemical imbalance.
At the same time, I am scientifically-minded, and understand that my mind arises as a product of the processes of my brain and body. I don't disagree that hormones play as a factor in my orientation, but not everyone in the ace community shares that sentiment, and of course having your orientation chalked up to a specific medical or phychological "quirk" generally feels bad.
If you dont mind me asking what is the difference between sexual attraction and being horny?
Sexual attraction requires a object of attraction, usually a person who you feel the urge to have sex with. Arousal isn't directed.
So does arousal have no trigger in your case¿? Is morning wood an example of such arousal where it is not directed¿?
Basically. Sometimes I just realize I'm horny. If the situation allows, I may go deal with it. I'm sure there have been times where a stimulus of a sexual nature produced an arousal response in me, but never from a desire for intercourse with the object of the stimulus.
Thanks for indulging my curiosity.
No problem. As an aside, and just so you know, my experience may not be unique, but it also does not describe that of all asexual people. There is a WHOLE lot of variation.
Solid
Hey there chief, got any sources for your comment? Like any kind of peer reviewed references to the links between oxytocin and loneliness, romantic relationships and orgasm? Would be interesting to read.
You'd be better off with general academic articles or even just the Wikipedia for it if you don't know anything about oxytocin yet
But here you go:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-48708-003
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22281209/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3183515/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8009111/
Unless you have a background in medicine/psychology it'll probably be over your head. But if your familiar with any type of research you can probably manage.
I'd start with something this tho
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
Thanks, that was actually really interesting and I learnt stuff I didn't know beforehand. The thing is your comment seemed to trigger quite a few people (me included) because it seemed insensitive. Thankfully you later commented that "For some people (like all the ones in the article) they want it fixed. Others are perfectly happy the way they are, and both are fine and none of anyone else’s business" so you obviously get it. It's funny how easy it is for people to misunderstand each other in forums like this. This has been a learning experience for me.
No worries.
Came here from /all like most people probably did. I was used to /science on Reddit where most people have a scientific background.
So my comment assumed familiarity with all the basic stuff. And yeah, science wise you have to be a little insensitive talking about this stuff, but most of the time it's described as "clinical" instead.
Which has not worked out well from all the replies I got lol.
I just didn't know the tone of this community
wow I didn't know being Ace made me immune to lonliness I guess all those days where I felt the complete emptiness from having a lack of relationship was just me being goofy :p
You've got to be careful how you're referring to it. Asexual is not the same thing as aromantic. Confusing the two causes people to misunderstand both.
But neither are binary things... People can be asexual and/or aromantic in lots of different ways to various degrees.
And both are on the same scale.
Everyone is so hung up on labels, if this wasn't a sub literally called c/science, I would have put all the disclaimers in there. But I assumed people on here wouldn't need it, and understood this stuff is always a scale.
Not functioning in the same way as the majority of people does not mean it is not functioning correctly.
TLDR: the language used to talk about science isn't the same as common day to day language.
Long explanation:
It's a neurotransmitter...
It exists to do something.
If for one reason or another that's not happening, or just too much or too less, then the biological process is not functioning correctly.
We're not talking about if that's a good or bad thing.
Like, I don't have a specific liver enzyme that breaks opioids down into active metabolites. It's nonfunctioning.
But that's a good thing, because the trade off to common opioids not working, is better to me than the opposite where I'm incredibly likely to get addictied from metabolizing too fast.
If oxytocin isn't able to work, then something in the process isn't functioning correctly. That's not a judgement on what's normal or best. It's a factual statement about a biological process. One part might not work at all, both parts might not, or you might just be on different ends of a couple different scales.
Or like pheromones. Humans can produce very small amounts, we just don't have the organ to pick it up. It's a system where it's 100% for it to be non functional.
That's kind of how evolution ebbs and flows. Sometimes stuff just stops working if there's no pressure for it.
The range that is used to define too much or too little is based on research that starts with an assumption that there is a correct range. While some things like cholesterol have clear consistency with levels and buildup, not everything is that clearly defined.
Keep in mind that homosexuality was scientifically defined as 'not correct' for a long time based on 'biological processes not functioning correctly' because the scientists that defined it that waay assumed that sexuality only exists for procreation. While there is a difference between scientific language and common usage for a lot of things, using terms like correct and normal outside of the scientific context has harmed a lot of people and just saying that is the scientific terminology doesn't help when the scientific terminology was the problem.
Its not a problem though
Sure...
Anytime you're taking about neurotransmitters or hormones, there's not really a "right" or "wrong".
Just natural human variation. And there's a shit ton of human variation.
They actually make oxytocin nasal spray now. But if someone is happy with who they are, it's not like they have to take it. I don't know of any studies where it's used with asexuality though, I think just autism.
For some people (like all the ones in the article) they want it fixed. Others are perfectly happy the way they are, and both are fine and none of anyone else's business
There are lots of asexuals who can orgasm just fine and feel amazing after just like anyone else, and who can be lonely. You know sex isn't the only form of social bonding right? Asexuals are perfectly capable of forming social relationships, including romantic ones since being asexual and aromantic aren't the same thing. This comment is so off base it's frankly a bit ridiculous, you clearly have no idea how asexuality works so maybe you shouldn't make sweeping assumptions about it.
Who taught all you people that neurotransmitters were binary?
It's starting to get concerning...
You certainly talk about them like they're binary. You talk like someone who doesn't actually know anything about asexual people, and I say that as someone who is asexual myself. Imagine if someone tried to narrow down being gay or bi to a single chemical, it's ridiculous.
Incorrect. It's not a disorder or dysfunction. It's a sexual attraction type just like gay or straight, and I would appreciate some respect, instead of this archaic "you're just sick" that straight people apply to every other sexuality.
As someone who is Asexual and been in relationships, I've still not had sexual attraction to my partners, and still had oxytocin highs.
Instead of getting offended and thinking it's a binary thing and everyone is either asexual or not:
Remember that any time someone talks about hormones or neurotransmitters, there is no "right" just "average".
And the most unique human on the planet would be the hypothetical person who is dead smack on the "average" for the 100s of different ones.
Pointing out what causes differences isn't the same as saying we need to get everyone in the average.
Hell, the entire article is about asexual people wanting to know the "why"....
Did you even read it yet?
On the contrary, the article listed in the OP is about people experiencing medical discrimination due to a lack of awareness that asexuality can be a valid orientation. The asexual people quoted in their personal anecdotes about their medical care were reporting that medical and psychiatric professionals continually misdiagnosed or gave erroneous treatment based on assumptions around what "healthy" sexual desire looks like.
Essentially, imagine someone posted an article talking about how medical professionals are finally recognizing being gay isn't a medical issue that needs to be "fixed", and then you respond saying what the physiological causes of being gay could be. You're getting kick back because it's at best pretty tone deaf, no matter whether it's backed up with evidence or not.
It's literally the intro and conclusion of the article...
Conclusion:
It's hard for anyone to understand why something happens when you respond to people talking about why it's happening by plugging your ears and yelling.
You might not care about why, but lots of people do. Why get in the way of that?
The whole reason there's medical discrimination, is because medical professionals think it's due to past trauma.
Talking about what may actually cause it, fixes that problem.
You're complaining about a valid issue, it's just you're also complaining about the people trying to fix it mate...
Do you think she would have sought out medical advice if she wasn't under social pressure to be sexual, or was aware asexuality existed?
Would the nurse say that to a woman who said she was gay?
The medical professionals she saw were not aware asexuality was a thing and so she received erroneous and subpar treatment. This article is not about an asexual person's journey to find out why they are the way they are or something like that. It's very clearly about fighting discrimination. As you quoted:
As someone who is demi I experienced a lot of social pressure around sex and sexuality and experienced the same kind of doubts about myself that a gay person might have 40 years ago. Again, if you came into a thread about medical professionals finally not treating gay people like they are mentally ill with explanations of how people are/become gay, you'd look like an asshole, regardless of if you were right or not.
Sounds like you agree with me that talking about why people are different and that variation is 100% normal would be beneficial
Not sure why you're so upset that we agree, but I don't think I'm going to keep responding
In your view, are there any disorders or dysfunctions of the mind left in the world? Is feeling comfortable with crucial differences between what is considered a healthy body and what is not, a good reason to stop calling it a disorder?
That's a good question. I believe if a mental, physical, or psychological trait hinders your QOL or impedes your ability to perform basic tasks, it qualifies as a disorder or dysfunction.
I think everyone has traits that make them lean towards dysfunction, but they are manageable, tolerable, or not seen as abnormal.
Most Deaf people don't see their deafness as a handicap or dysfunction. While some hearing folks might think "they're missing out on so much" it can't be further from the truth.
This was the first time I saw Asexuality mentioned on a major community, so I was happy to see the spread of awareness, then the first comment was along the lines of "it's probably a mental disorder". To me, that sounds anti-LGBT.
One of the main criteria of a "disorder", as per psychiatrists making a diagnosis via the DSM, is that it causes significant disruption in one's life, and distress or dysfunction. Asexual and demi people can be perfectly happy being the way they are and experience no distress about a lack of attraction beyond feeling confused or different. In contrast, I doubt many people with OCD are happy being stuck turning a light switch on and off for an hour because their brain tells them they aren't doing it the "right" way.
LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER