A question for the ladies of AF

[Edwardo Piet]

Well that's fair enough as long as you don't consider that 'deficiency' to be unhealthy or 'abnormal' in a bad way. The problem with words like 'deficiency' or 'lack' is they have a connotation that implies 'not enough', as in, that asexuals don't have the sex hormones that they should have.

It's the same reason I always object when atheists say they 'lack belief in god', because an absence is not a lack. A lack would suggest that we 'don't believe enough', whereas an absence just means we 'don't believe'.

I do think that a sex drive is entirely biochemical and asexuals have an absence of a sexual biochemistry. The problem is that words like 'deficiency' have connotations that you probably didn't intend. I'm sure you don't mean that asexuals lack the sex drive that they should have, you merely mean their sex drive is absent. But your statement could be misunderstood that way.

It's similar even with words like 'imbalance'. Because 'balance' is considered to be a good thing. And, for instance, people are often medicated with drugs like lithium to correct an imbalance in the brain, because their brain chemicals are not as balanced as they should be ('balanced' often means 'stable', for instance, and imbalanced or unbalanced often means 'unstable', which definitely also has a negative connotation. But even when we're not talking about stability or unstability, balance is often considered good and imbalance bad, just as moderation is considered good and immoderation bad).

And of course I know you would never suggest that asexuals be given medication that increases their sex drive to correct an 'imbalance'. I know that you mean 'imbalance' and 'deficiency' in a purely neutral way, but the problem with words like those and words like 'lack' is they don't have neutral connotations and they can easily be misunderstood for you suggesting that there's something wrong, abnormal or unhealthy with asexuality rather than it simply being less common.

Well, if it IS something abnormal in the hormone production, I think not addressing this for political correct reasons is probably a bit counter productive. Because if so, a person can receive hormone treatment if they so choose. Though of course I would never suggest anyone be pressured into it if they'd rather not, just that they know it's an option if they want it.

Yes, they could receive 'hormone treatment' if they wanted to, and if it were possible. But so could homosexuals and bisexuals and pansexuals and any other non-heterosexual orientation, if it were possible for them to have hormone treatment for them to become heterosexual and if they wanted to. Asexuality is no more 'abnormal' than homosexuality, bisexuality or pansexuality, etc. I don't think 'abnormal' is the right word because that suggests that being heterosexual is more 'normal' than other sexualites.

Hell, heterosexuals could receive 'hormone treatment' to become non-heterosexual if they wanted to, and if it were possible.

Right-handedness is more common than left-handedness, but would you say that left-handed people are abnormal?

What do you mean "not addressing it for politically correct reasons"? The point is that there's nothing wrong with being asexual and it's no more 'abnormal' than being sexual, unless you mean it's simply less common. Asexual people don't have a desire for sex, and they don't need to have a desire for sex, and there's nothing wrong, immoral, unnatural or unhealthy about them not having a desire for sex.

An absence of sexual hormones doesn't mean a lack of sexual hormones, and the fact that some people are uncommonly born without sexual hormones doesn't mean that those people are abnormal or need treatment. I don't understand what your addressing something politically incorrect was about, because it wouldn't be politically correct to suggest that homosexuality is abnormal simply because it's less common either, but it wouldn't simply be politically incorrect to suggest that homosexuality needed correcting it would also be immoral to suggest that. I'm saying that asexualty is simply even rarer (a lot rarer), and it is no more 'abnormal' or unhealthy than homosexuality nor does it need correction or treatment any more than homosexuality.