A question for the ladies of AF

[Catholic_Lady]

Oh I know. I just figure sex hormones are responsible for sex drive. So if the sex drive is so low to where the person doesn't even feel sexual attraction to anyone, it makes sense on paper that it could be influenced by an imbalance or deficiency of sex hormones. But i wouldn't rule out other causes, whatever they may be. It's just a guess.

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

Going into "out there" territory now, but is it a thing to be attracted to something other than people? Like animals or objects. I know there are fetishes involving stuff like that, but I'm talking about someone not being attracted to people at all, and instead, being attracted to something inhuman. If so, is that an "orientation" as well?

Yes it's possible to be attracted to those things and yes those things are orientations, however rare (although when they're especially specific I guess they are more fetishes than orientations?). Although if acted on some of those orientations (like the animal one) would be illegal and immoral of course.

I saw a TV documentary about sexual objectivism once. Not in the sense of objectifying people, but like, literally, in this documentary there were people who were attracted to objects. One man had sex with his car exhaust and he felt feelings of romance mixed in with sex while doing so. Another had a desire for sex and feelings of being in love, with a particular number of a public bus, which he never acted out because he would have been arrested. It wasn't entirely limited to vehicles at all, but those were the only ones I remember because I found them especially bizarre at the time of watching them. Although I don't find them bizarre anymore, because I've myself since developed sexual attractions to non-sexual things. Although not objects. It's more like I get turned on by specific concepts. Think of a sexual fantasy and then remove the sex part. Something like that.

There's even autosexuality, or sexual attraction to oneself. I once read a whole article about a woman who had both a sexual and romantic attraction to herself, and took herself out on dates for a romantic meal, before going home and making love to herself.

[Catholic_Lady]

Never heard of auto before. Interesting...

[Brian37]

Pansexual: gender, sexual identity do not determine if I’m attracted to a person. I’m attracted to people, not their gender.

Sapiosexual: I’m attracted to intelligence.

I like shiny objects.

You know what is disturbing about this joke I made? Is it really is the story of my life. Proof you ask? Go to the original post and look at all the "kudos".......

UGGGGG I hate being an easy tease. 

[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.

[The Valkyrie]

I can't help remenbering a quote from a terrible movie I saw years ago.

Can't remember the movie but the quote went;

"He's trisexual!"

"TRIsexual?"

"Yeah. He'll try anything. Dogs, chickens, mud..."

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think bi/homo/pan sexuality is a hormone issue because those people still have sexual desire/attraction.

But for the person who doesn't have that at all, i just wonder if it might be related to a hormone issue. I'm not saying it's immoral or anything, just saying it might be related to a hormone deficiency. And if it is, I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that. Especially in case the person chose to treat the deficiency/imbalance.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't think bi/homo/pan sexuality is a hormone issue because those people still have sexual desire/attraction.

But for the person who doesn't have that at all, i just wonder if it might be related to a hormone issue. I'm not saying it's immoral or anything, just saying it might be related to a hormone deficiency. And if it is, I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that. Especially in case the person chose to treat the deficiency/imbalance.

I don't understand what you are saying though. An absence of sexual hormones is no more deficient or unbalanced than a presence of sexual hormones and it's no more unhealthy than any other orientation or absence thereof.

I can't even imagine the unhealthiness of asexuality being possible. All the possible arguments against the healthiness of asexuality seem to rely on the premise that asexuals aren't really asexual and that they do actually have sexual desires but they are repressing them or they're 'frigid'. Assuming that we're talking about genuine asexuality, about a genuine absence of a sex drive, then asexuality cannot possibly be unhealthy.

I don't care about political correctness at all, by the way, but I'm utterly obsessed with technical correctness. And I think both the statement "atheists lack belief in god" and the statement "asexuals have a hormonal deficiency" are technically incorrect statements.

Speaking of technical correctness by the way, I once had a friend who was one of those annoying atheists who are an atheist but they don't like the word 'atheist' and they'd rather not call themselves an atheist. Another friend asked him what he believed and he said "Well, technically I'm an atheist." and I then asked him what he was non-technically. He said he didn't understand the question

[LastPoet]

I don't think bi/homo/pan sexuality is a hormone issue because those people still have sexual desire/attraction.

But for the person who doesn't have that at all, i just wonder if it might be related to a hormone issue. I'm not saying it's immoral or anything, just saying it might be related to a hormone deficiency. And if it is, I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that. Especially in case the person chose to treat the deficiency/imbalance.

*channels Thena*

You are just trying to prove atheism is a hormone deficiency. We lack the god hormone.

I will grab me coat.

[Edwardo Piet]

LMAO!