Sexual repression?

[pretzelboy]

I'm rather interested to hear what other people around here think of "sexual repression." The idea comes up from time to time in the asexosphere, but I don't think it's ever been discussed much over here, though threads on AVEN pop up from time to time. (searching the site for "sexual repression" and "sexually repressed" via Google confirmed this.)

Anyway...on my blog, I recently posted a thread about the topic, and I figured I'd copy the important parts here to get more discussion. I'm rather interested to see what other people think of the topic.
preg_replace($acronyms_match, $acronyms_repl, 'Am I sexually repressed?

----
Since first finding the asexual community, I have had a growing skepticism toward the concept of sexual repression. I knew that it originated with Freud (or was at least popularized by him) and that scientific psychology tends to hate Freud. A lot. Many of his ideas are untestable, unstudyable, and therefore unscientific--yet people think of them as being facts of science, sound psychological knowledge. I wondered if this might be true for the concept for sexual repression.

Another thing that bothered me is that in popular usage, there are are two rather distinct meanings of "sexual repression" that get merged together, in a fuzzy, muddled confused sort of way, and no one seems to notice. One meaning is simply to say that some people are in denial of their sexuality. They have sexual desires, they have sexual feelings, but they refuse to acknowledge them, pretend they aren't real. When their sexual values and sexual beliefs conflict with their own sexual reality, they try to convince themselves that the do not feel what they indeed do feel.

The second meaning is that everyone--or at least most people--have these powerful, innate sexual desires, and if they repress these, if they do not act on them, it will create neuroses, mental illness, mental problems in their lives. Connected to this is the belief that everyone has these powerful, innate, natural sexual desires, and if someone is not interested, it is because they are repressing them, it is because they are sexually repressed.

As I understand it, Freud meant it in the latter sense. As I have attempted to make sense of this concept, I was quite surprised to find that my thoughts have been informed largely by a sex-therapist with a psychoanalytic approach, a sex-therapist who hardly has kind words to say about the idea of "sexual repression." In [url=http://www.bapfelbaumphd.com/Sexual_Reality.html>Sexual Reality and How We Dismiss It[/url]') Bernard Apfelbaum explains the origins of Freud's idea of sexual repression. (By the way, this article is probably the most interesting piece on sex that I've ever read, and if you've got a bit of time, I would highly recommend it. At 11,000 words, it is a bit long, though.)

To illustrate how our ideas of sexual reality are shaped by our fantasies rather than reality, he quotes John Howard Van Amringe, dean of Columbia College in the 19th Century, who was defending the policy of having an all male school. "If you can teach mathematics to a boy when there's a girl in the room then there is something wrong with the boy." Apfelbaum reflects on this:

Now, as it happened, so many boys have learned mathematics with girls in the room, that we need to ask where Dean Amringe went wrong. The answer is that he confused fantasy with reality. He imagined what it would be like to be a boy in a coed college and this just seemed to him to be a highly erotic prospect. Nowadays, sobered by the reality of coed experience, our imagination is no longer so free to play upon it.

He likens to this Freud's ideas of sexual repression.

Freud is, of course, the modern authority for the image of sex as wild and primitive, at odds with decency, the beast with two backs rattling the bars of its makeshift cage. Perhaps no less than St. Paul he thought of us as daily wrestling with our animal nature. Although Freud's conception is well known, it is not so well known that it was based on an inferential leap.

Now here's a big surprise: the reality that Freud observed was entirely the reverse. Freud's belief in the strength of the sex drive was based on his observations of its weakness. The evidence that Freud adduces for his vision of universal sexual repression is his observation of a widespread lack of libido in both men and women that he called impotence, being careful to say that he was using the term in the broadest possible sense.

After quoting an observation by Freud noting the widespread sexual disinterest, lack of pleasure, and sexual boredom, Apfelbaum makes the following analysis:

This was the sexual reality that Freud observed only to reject it. It is as if he observed that all the boys were learning mathematics with girls in the room and, fully agreeing with Dean Amringe, concluded that there must be something wrong with all the boys. This could not be the natural state of man. Hence Freud's inference that this lack of sexual excitement must be the wound we bear in the service of civilized life.

His point is clear: belief in sexual repression is not based on the reality of sex, not based on the reality of people's sexual desires. It is founded upon a dismissal of reality.

So, if you're wondering if you're repressed, if you're wondering if someone you know is repressed, if you're wondering if asexuality might just be sexual repression after all, the answer is quite simple.

You're not sexually repressed, they're not sexually repressed, no one is sexually repressed because there is no such thing as sexual repression. I previously gave two definitions of sexual repression. One is a denial of one's own sexuality and the other is a denial of the plain reality that a lot of people aren't interested in sex.

Certainly some people are very interested in sex. Certainly some people are in denial of their own sexuality, just as a lot of people are in denial about a lot of things. But I don't think we should call this sexual repression because by using that term, we perpetuate belief in its other meaning, a profoundly anti-asexual meaning. Indeed, an anti-reality meaning. If you or someone you know isn't interested in sex, it's not because deep-down they're secretly really interested in sex and are repressing it. It's much more likely that they're not interested in sex because they're not interested in sex.

[forgetmyself]

pretzelboy, thanks for another enlightening and thought-provoking post. I heartily agree that the concept, and even the term, "sexual repression" are useless. If someone is in denial about their sexuality, we should simply label that denial. I believe there are at least as many people in denial about their asexuality (take it from me). Are we to call them "asexually repressed"? Of course not.

[Dargon]

Well written. In my two psychology courses in college (intro to and abnormal), both mentioned Freud and both said his theories were, to put it bluntly, a load of crap. The sexual repression thing is no different, as you have clearly shown.

[pretzelboy]

Funny you should mention being asexually repressed...

I had been reading a book called "Sexual Desire Disorders" that had a chapter by the same guy quoted in this article. Somehow, his comments on "sexual repression" caused me to think of "asexual repression." I found the idea so amusing that I felt that i had to write about it, but that I couldn't do so with a straight face (or e-equivalent thereof), so I tried to use the most overblown rhetoric I possibly could with a result was a sort of autobiography-satire hybrid thingy that still managed to have semi-coherent arguments, even though those were largely intended to be a literary device to make "asexual repression" sound like a semi-intelligible idea, even though it's kind of a silly idea, with the implied meaning that "sexual repression" is simply stupid. At least, that's what had intended when writing it. Whether anyone actually read it that way, I have no idea.

[forgetmyself]

Thanks! That really was a funny blog post.

[ghosts]

Hm... I guess the term "sexual repression" hasn't really bothered me all that much. I believe that people can be in denial of their own feelings, and that's what I've always thought of as being "sexually repressed." I mean, I think *I* used to be a bit repressed, because I was so uncomfortable with even hearing about sex. It makes sense to me to use the term in that way.

But at the same time, I'm a bit torn, because I can see what you're getting at. I know that some people believe that asexual people are just repressed and that's all there is to it.

Eh, I don't know.

[ily]

I was "asexually repressed" for awhile. But it was hard not to be that way when I'd never heard of asexuality and knew no other mode of being besides (pretended) heterosexuality. Similarly, I used to be in denial about having a learning disability, but once I got more information on it and found out that other people had it too, I accepted it. It's really easy to deny something to yourself when you think you're the only one, and it's something out of mainstream society. Which is why the idea of sexual repression is odd to me, from my personal experience. When it comes to repressing sexual feelings, I would have no motive. I'm very motivated by belonging, so now that I know there are other asexual people, I don't deny it.

[pretzelboy]

For a while, I had been going back and forth on the matter. On the one hand, there were the totally bogus (and strongly anti-asexual) meanings. But then I saw one author that I really liked who used the term in a completely sensible context. (I think it had to do with operationally defining homosexuality, and he imagined a guy who was "sexually repressed" who was trying really hard to convince himself that the erections he got and the warm and fuzzy feelings he felt in response to other guys were just friendly sorts of feelings. That kind of being "sexually repressed" seemed real enough.

But now my position is that a lot of people who use the term are much less clear about what they mean by it, giving the very real possibility of misinterpretation, and the possibility of reinforcing the negative meanings. But more than that, I don't think we need the term "sexually repressed" at all to describe the legitimate meanings of the terms. I made a thread [url=http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?showtopic=41606] on AVEN about this same topic (partly, I wanted a wider readership, and, partly, I was curious about the range of opinions there.)

The term sexual repression can mean a number of different things. It can mean that 1) someone is unwilling to acknowledge their sexual feelings 2) that not acting on sexual desires will somehow lead to neuroses 3) that all people are naturally interested in sex and that if someone isn't interested, it must be because they are "repressing" their sexuality, 4) that a society's rules about sexuality are oppressive and prevent people from enjoying sexuality 5) that a person is unable to have the kinds of sexual encounters they want because their society won't allow it or 6) that a person has sexual problems because messages their society taught them about sexuality prevent them from being able to do so.

Hallu made a very sensible comment.

See, in my experience, all of those are real, except for the obnoxious 2 and 3 (and maybe 5, since lots of people with socially unacceptable sexual desires find ways to work around the societal constraints in question - but people often go through a lot of confusion and angst and pain because they're not sure whether they actually want to do that or not.)

It's conceivable that we could find other things to call those things except for "repression", if the term "repression" is too problematic, but in that case what would we call them?

And my response to her

I definitely think that for the real ones we should find alternate terms for them besides sexual repression. I think it would add clarity, decrease confusion, and not reinforce the stupid meanings.

I think that for a lot of them, alternate terms are pretty easy.

For number one: Not acknowledging one's sexuality/sexual feelings, being in denial about one's sexuality, being uncomfortable with one's sexuality, not being comfortable talking about sexuality etc.

For number four, we could just replace "repress" with "oppress" and the situation is fixed.

For number five, I don't really see a need for a single term for this and when needing to describe it, generally a whole sentence would work. (i.e. Because of the taboo against X sexual act in society Y, many people are forced to go underground with their sexuality/have difficulty finding sexual partners/can only find sexual partners in unsafe ways, etc.)

For number six, the term "internalized homophobia" already describes one type of this. Other terms like "internalizing negative societal messages about sexuality" should work.

I think that for most of these, there already are terms (in English, at least) to describe them. It doesn't seem like there is even a need to use work-arounds or PC sounding language to accomplish the task of not talking about "sexual repression." More than that, I think people would be more intelligible if they used these rather than the vague "sexual repression" that no one seems to know what it means. At least, that's my totally biased opinion.

To a large extent, I think that asexuals should actively challenge the idea of sexual repression. Partly, this is because I think that one of the big ways asexuality can make a positive societal contribution is to normalize not being interested in sex. Actively challenging the idea of "sexual repression" can be a big part of how we do that. In the wider culture, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who think "sexual repression" is nonsense, but they keep that opinion to themselves.

Of course, those who are convinced asexuals are just repressed are likely to continue in that. Largely, I think this is because a lot of reasoning people do is ad hoc. They don't believe in asexuality, so they need to find something that they can use to justify that belief with. Whether that's a sexually-repressed response, not-met-right-person response, not-had-sex-with-right-person/not-had-sex-with-me response, just-late-bloomer response, gay-and-denying-it response, or whatever is, to a large extent, irrelevant.

Still, there are those who are uncertain (and thus more likely to be persuadable) who may have their doubts because of some nonsensical belief about sexual repression. I've had people find my blog by asking whether they're asexual or repressed. I've seen people on AVEN asking how we know if asexuality isn't just repression. Given these positions, I think there is ample reason to fight the idea.

[Olivier]

OK, I'll put on my contrary hat

Firstly, I think sexual repression exists. Not perhaps in a purely Freudian sense, but along the lines of 1, 6, and somewhat 4 above.

Secondly, I think "sexual repression" is a fine and dandy word for that.

Thirdly, as long as society collectively is not good at talking candidly about sex and sexuality, some people will use terms concerning sexuality wrongly or weirdly, no matter what term you choose.

Fourthly, some people who identify as asexual are actually repressed sexuals. Damn it would be weird if this wasn't true - a whole subsection of society with a mature and insightful handle on their sexuality! Go to AVEN and see it ain't so. If I were less tactful I could name a dozen names, but there are AVENites who to me sound very sexual, and very sexually repressed. They're often young, and wrong or confused (or unnaturally certain) about a whole lot of other stuff, too.

Fifthly, discussing whether asexuality is sexual repression is a useful thing to do. Mostly to reinforce the point that while some people may identify as asexual due to sexual repression, most don't. And also to reinforce that while a small number may, that's not an invalidator of an orientation.

Yes, there are other ways of describing it. Framing things in terms of denial works for me in the cases where that's the dynamic. And making a clean break from Freud is a plus. But I'm happy enough with the term "sexual repression". It's meaning is usually perfectly clear from context, and if it's used in a way that's weird or wrong, I think that reflects more on the author than the term itself (as with most terms).

[pretzelboy]

Olivier, I think my main disagreement with you is on point two, having to do with a qualification on point three. That some of the things "sexual repression" can be used to mean exist is, I think, clear enough.

Thirdly, as long as society collectively is not good at talking candidly about sex and sexuality, some people will use terms concerning sexuality wrongly or weirdly, no matter what term you choose.

While it's true that some people use words "wrong or weirdly," I don't think we can say that in this context.

(Tangent: What it means to use a word wrong is kind of a difficult issue as there is no absolute standard for what is right or not in language. If everyone except a very small number of isolated people used a word to mean one thing, the large majority's understanding is "right" and those differing are "wrong" because they're violating the shared/standard/common/accepted understanding/meaning. But if a lot of people start using a word "wrong", then some language purists will condemn it as wrong, but it will continue to be used intelligibly in the "wrong" sense where both speaker and hearer have a common understanding with the "wrong meaning." Then if ever more people are using it in the "wrong" sense, you have a change in meaning over time. At what point does the "wrong" meaning become the "right" one?)

In this case, the "wrong and weird" meanings (i.e. the Freudian sorts of 2 and 3) are actually closer to the original meaning. (The OED's first usage of "sexual repression" is dated to 1885:

E. B. FOOTE Replies Alphites xvi. 88 These diseases are induced by *sexual repression and secret indulgences as well as by intemperance in the exercise of the natural function

. They also have a quote from a translation of Freud dated to 1910. As I understand it, Freud did a lot of popularize the notion. One of my main objection to using "sexual repression" for the sensible meanings is that the stupid meanings (which tend to be a generally dumbed down version of Freud) are a) more original and b) not even close to being entirely lost. If those original meanings were dead and gone, mere remnants of history, I might not object to the term sexual repression. If the stupid meanings were misunderstandings of the primary meanings and were just used by ill-informed people who don't understand what "sexual repression" is supposed to mean, I might not object to the term "sexual repression." But neither is the case.

In fact, in the OED's 4 examples, the only one that diverges from 2 and 3 may be any of the six.

It may seem strange that Queen Victoria and her reign are associated with sexual repression. After all, she did have nine children.

Another point is the (quasi-lost) derivation of the term: "sexual repression." Obviously "repression" is a nominal version of the verb "repress." The idea is people repressing their sexual desires. Yet, except for people who have absolutely no sexual desires of any kind and people who have no self-controll of any kind, everyone represses sexual desires. Just like we have to repress lots of our desires as a simply consequence of having to live in society with other people. (Freud's idea of repression seems to have been based on something like this, except, as I understand it, he seemed to think this had to do with the effects of civilization. But the need to repress desires to get along with others is just as necessary in hunter-gatherer societies as it is in modern urban life.

I may really want to tell something that I think they're a total dumbass, but, generally, I repress this desire because giving in to it might not be such a good idea. Someone may want to have sex with a certain person, but if that person doesn't want to have sex with them, they damn well better repress that desire. If someone is in a public place and is feeling sexual desires, they better repress that one as well, at least until they're in a not-so-public place. I think the idea of sexual repression somehow stems from the idea that repressing sexual desires too much will lead to bad effects.

It is worth noting that for (sexual repression = denial), the idea of repression sexual desires is, to a large extent, obscured. I think this has to do with the change in meaning that has occured over time. I'm not entirely sure why, but my gut tells me that this concept, originating in academia, was simply too stupid for many ordinary people to grasp, so they had to redefine it in terms that actually made sense. (This seems similar to what has happened to the term "socially constructed", which many people now take to mean "not genetically based", sometimes to the great frustration of social constructionists, but that's a whole nother can of worms.)

Like I said, I basically agree with your other points, except that I would qualify them by saying that I would use language other than "sexual repression/sexually repressed."

Also, from what I've seen on AVEN, a number of the rather obviously sexual people thinking they're asexual might not be so-much in denial of their sexuality but identifying as asexual based on a totally unrealistic idea of sexuality. The fact that I'm pretty sure these people aren't asexual stems from what I know about their experiences based on their self-report. If they've reported it, I'm pretty sure they're aware of it. Rather, they seem to have gotten these weird notions of what sexual people are like from pop-culture, from TV movies and magazinzes, and from peer interaction, and the result is, "Like, OMG. I don't want to have sex with 50 totally random people a day! Ewww! Could this possibly mean I'm asexual? I think it does!"

[locksandgreen]

You all are obviously very ignorant, if you remember anything from "basic" Psychology you would know that the specific theory of sexual repression in child development being connected to mental problems has in fact been proven by critics of Freud, the only discernment that is made by critics of Freud; is that of course life is not all about sex. Thus sex is not the only cause of mental issues, however, we now know that mental illness is most often related to negative developments (relative to what it was that was experienced) in childhood and less often linked to birth problems or genetic inheritances (those are typically considered birth defects). So please do a little more research before you express your ignorant views! I'm sorry if your insulted, but this post doesn't say much for your intellectuality or that of those who agree with you... reading your post makes me cry for my nation. You should also do a study on how to properly engage in researching an issue.

[locksandgreen]

Also reading over the reply's it's obvious most of you don't even know what the term "Sexual Repression" means!!!! It's not an act that generally symbolizes a life style or way of living! Yes one can say, "many conservative people are sexually repressed," but unless you know the meaning of the term, you have no clue how that applies! The term "Repression" is the most popular psychological term ever used! Why? Because it is the leading cause to almost all physiological disorders! A "repressed memory" or experience is responsible for most all of the quirks in a personality. Physiological issues stem from past experiences that the mind develops defense mechanism to deal with such issues, in a manner that allows the individual to escape the negativity that is associated. Also if there is no association made positively or negatively, the person many not develop a preference at all. Some times a person develops in away that allows them to function in society, sometimes not. Some times what ever associations that are made simply form a bias with in an individual. After experiencing a severely traumatic situation the mind can repress something to the point of memory loss. "Sexual Repression" is the same concept just more specifically concerning the issues of sexual associations or experiences. Yes, "the act of repressing sexual activity (abstinence)" can be associated with many historical and religious beliefs but, more importantly the act of abstinence (the correct term for the concepts referenced in the above post's) can also lead to the Physiological term "Sexual repression" which may have negative effect in adult hood depending upon how great a degree and how you look at it. "Sexual Repression" a more specific term combined with the term "Repression" which is one of many defense mechanisms cited in basic physiology. "Abstinence" is the term for non-sexually active people, and "Asexuality" cannot occur in human beings. "Asexuality" is only typically possible in plants, Bacteria (other micro-organisms), worms and some insects. Why? Because, the term "Asexual" means that one possess the reproductive quality's of both sex's and have the ability to create a baby(reproduce) in ones body with out the use of exterior methods, or the need of a sexual partner. So please people if you do not have a sex your not "Asexual", you are "abstinent". If you don't like that term find a new one, because using the term "asexual" makes you sound very ignorant.

[KAGU143]

Locksandgreen, you are clearly not qualified to tell others that they are ignorant when your own ignorance is so clearly evident.
Just for your information, the term asexual has more than one meaning. Look it up in an unabridged dictionary.

I'm not going to bother addressing most of your post since it's obvious that you aren't interested in hearing about facts that contradict your own sheltered beliefs, however, I do feel the need to point out one glaring error in particular:

You said that

"Asexuality" is only possible in plants, Bacteria (other micro-organisms), worms and some incests.

I laughed at the idea that incest can somehow be related to asexuality, but I SUSPECT that you really meant insects. Regardless, you are wrong. Asexuality has been very well documented in a number of vertebrate species.

The Freudian slips in your post are hilarious. For those alone, as well as your skill in rehashing all of the tired old preconceived notions that we have been steeped in for ages, I consider it a classic, and well worth saving.

Welcome to A Positive, locksandgreen.

[The Gray Lady]

All right, I'll feed the troll just this once.

"Abstinence" is the term for non-sexually active people, and "Asexuality" cannot occur in human beings. "Asexuality" is only possible in plants, Bacteria (other micro-organisms), worms and some incests. Why? Because, the term "Asexual" means that one possess the reproductive quality's of both sex's and have the ability to create a baby(reproduce) in ones body with out the use of exterior methods, or the need of a sexual partner. So please people if you do not have a sex your not "Asexual", you are "abstinent". If you don't like that term find a new one, because using the term "asexual" makes you sound very ignorant.

That is the BIOLOGICAL definition of asexuality. However, we are using the definition of asexuality as a SEXUAL ORIENTATION, which specifically refers to a LACK OF SEXUAL ATTRACTION, and implies NOTHING ELSE. So, there are people (like me) who are asexual but not abstinent. I am sexually active and my body functions completely normally, or even better than normally, since I am able to have orgasms from sex. However, I still don't experience sexual attraction to anyone. I don't look at anyone and think, "Oh wow, that person is so hot, I would so do him/her." Not even my partner. Her body is neutral to me; I don't look at it and get aroused. There is nothing about her personality that I find arousing either. I love her dearly (in an obviously romantic way) and get along with her very, very well, but although we have quite successful sexual encounters, there is nothing about her that I would call "sexy." I'm not sure I know what "sexy" even is, beyond what I can glean from cultural context.

If you can't find this definition in the dictionary, that is because it is a relatively recent neologism. However, there is quite a large number of people who accept it, including academics. Go read the studies posted in the Knowledge Base here or at Asexual Explorations. Read FAQs and blog posts. Educate yourself.

If, after you've done that, you want to come back here to talk about it, fine. But if you haven't gone through all of that first, you don't belong here. This is not an "Asexuality 101" space.

[locksandgreen]

No this need not be an “asexuality 101 place”, but it seems to be one with the need of an “English, psychology, science and relative terminology 101” course.

KAGU143... No, you make me laugh! you are just as low and the child who criticizes the way some one says something rather then paying attention to what has been said. You are the type person who argues against someone by criticizing possible typos in ones responses! You know what we call that in debate? That’s called an “Ad hominem” for example your statements:

“I'm not going to bother addressing most of your post since it's obvious that you aren't interested in hearing about facts that contradict your own sheltered beliefs.

“I laughed at the idea that incest can somehow be related to asexuality, but I SUSPECT that you really meant insects. Regardless, you are wrong. Asexuality has been very well documented in a number of vertebrate species.”

“The Freudian slips in your post are hilarious. For those alone, as well as your skill in rehashing all of the tired old preconceived notions that we have been steeped in for ages, I consider it a classic, and well worth saving.”
(Although my statement many have been harsh is was an accurate one “these post do indeed make you people sound very ignorant,” so it is not in the same category)

Also more specially this part of your statement;


“As well as your skill in rehashing all of the tired old preconceived notions that we have been steeped in for ages, I consider it a classic, and well worth saving.”

Have you ever once opened a physiology book?

Or are you one of those new age morons who believe everything can be fixed with a pill, because some people figured out that our brain functions are based on chemical reactions and we can make drugs to affect them; Viola we can now negate the fact that every function in your brain is a chemical reaction or electrical in use of chemicals? Such a concept does not eliminate the fact that the concept “nurture” is a very influential factor of life and has been we’ll proven! Yes if humans where simple hardware and software a direct application would likely be better, but as the educated know chemical alteration by drug has its severe repercussions. Ether way it doesn’t matter, you have just expressed that you know nothing of physiology. Thank you for proving my point on ignorance! If that’s the biggest point you have to make then your really have nothing else to say…Ouch and another one bites the dust… hold on I’m not done I’m going to kick you while you’re down…

re•pres•sion definition
Pronunciation: /ri-ˈpresh-ən/
Function: n
1 : the action or process of repressing <gene repression>
2 a : a process by which unacceptable desires or impulses are excluded from consciousness and left to operate in the unconscious compare SUPPRESSION c
b : an item so excluded

(Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc. )

I have misplaced my Physiology book, but here a quote for you from Encyclopedia Britannica

“In psychoanalytic theory, the exclusion of distressing memories, thoughts, or feelings from the conscious mind. Often involving sexual or aggressive urges or painful childhood memories, these unwanted mental contents are pushed into the unconscious mind. Repression is thought to give rise to anxiety and to neurotic symptoms, which begin when a forbidden drive or impulse threatens to enter the conscious mind. Psychoanalysis seeks to uncover repressed memories and feelings through free association as well as to examine the repressed wishes released in dreams.”

“I laughed at the idea that incest can somehow be related to asexuality, but I SUSPECT that you really meant insects. Regardless, you are wrong. Asexuality has been very well documented in a number of vertebrate species.”

The only thing you have managed to accurately point out is that I did not mention the vertebrate example of asexuality. I was generalizing (assuming my readers had at least enough intelligence to get the general idea I was expressing), but my point really was: it is well documented to be physically impossible in humans, even hermaphrodites are not able to reproduce asexually

Also concerning the definition of "asexuality" A word that originated as a biological term.

Yes there is more than one definition there are as follows;

“Asexual:

1. Having no sex or sex organs sexless
2. Of or relating to reproduction with out the union of male and female gametes. ___Asexuality “

(Berkley’s Riverside Webster’s Dictionary Ed. II copyright 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company 222 Berkley street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.)

Yes there are dictionaries that allow slang to be defined in them; this does not change the fact that well educated intellectuals are still aware of the differences. In addition, you need to work on arguing in context because, my concern was merely proper use of the terminology. It was also in context to Physiology and biology! So in context yes I am 100% correct

I do not need to research to reply to these posts I know exactly where to cite my sources too I’m and have been well aware that, following a movement and Dr. Elizabeth Abbot’s book of “A History of Celibacy,” in the recent 21st century there have been groups of people using the term asexuality as if it translates into not having a gender specific attraction (Becoming ether a physiological or biological issue), but in order for these cases to accurately translate well they would also need to be void of sexual activity completely. Otherwise there is very little intelligence in using this already well defined word to define a new movement or sexual label, when there are plenty of them already defined in the English language to choose from (Aromantic, Celibacy, abstinence, or others)! I only really meant to suggest that a new word is used (if those who identify with the concept of the term have any self respect) the word not only sounds stupid, but makes one sound like an alien, plant or something obscure! One can come up with a better word and one that applies! Just because a woman writes a book doesn’t make her terms accurate.

And if expecting people who try and make an educated point to actually be educated makes be a troll then boo hoo life isn’t fair bring on the Billy goats!

If you don’t have what it takes to challenge me with something worthy of intellectual response then I have no more patience for your ignorance. I’m clearly more qualified to point out ignorance then you are. also look up the definition of the word ignorance just in case you are confused! Many are insulted by it as they are "ignorant" of its meaning.

In conclusion when speaking in context relative terms are important, One who uses Ad hominems is not a respected debater, and the use of slang still makes you sound ignorant!

Please… “A Positive” has nothing on me, Peace

P.S. Personally, "asexual" is really a lame term to use for a human. Honestly, it does one no justice and does not sound appealing in the least!

[locksandgreen]

The Gray Lady

"That is the BIOLOGICAL definition of asexuality."

No its the original and true definition, asexuality is a biological and horticultural term, Asexual is not a term excepted by The APA so it is not any thing other than a biological term end of story period point blank. The way you are using it is a slang term and one that is not very becoming at all.

Even if it is accepted soon that doesn't change the fact that there are much better terms to use not only aesthetically, but as well and descriptively as the term implies that the person was born that way. such and implication can be easily dis-proven as we have before use a concise mapping of the entire human genome and have dis-proven the gay gene theory, it will be very hard to prove that people are born that way, why don't you do some research and educate your self, if you where well educated we would not be disagreeing at this moment.

I understand you are relating to this new sexual identity classification, but if you know anything about physiology you would see that your statement on how you feel is very basic text book psychology, and I wish you would just learn enough about it to accept the truth because this is just another opportunity for the physiology industry to exploit people like you. any one with a good knowledge of psychology knows that it is a subject that is good for one to understand on their own, but also one that is used for evil. Often a respect for the study is followed by a loathing of the industry its self. I'm not gonna make any personal assumption to how you feel but I would recommend learning how do diagnose your self through your own knowledge and not rely on others to diagnose you.. I must also point out that I mean no insult to the concept of being Aromintic (a more accurate term as it is accepted by the APA) I respect every one and their right to be different, that is what makes the world beautiful! I just cannot sit quietly while to people try and make ignorant statements as in the original post I wish you the best on refining your understanding.

P.S. Reading and typing well does not make you intelligent ever herd of Einstein?

[locksandgreen]

KAGU143 Also none of my typo's qualify as a Freudian slip, I would suggest that you look that definition up as well. Yes I make typos... no I didn't say to my self... "I wanna be an excellent secretary when I grown up," I said, "I wanna make money;" so I skipped the typing courses... don't you feel intelligent now? If I ever need help with spotting typo's I'll still probably ask some one more qualified then you though.

[KAGU143]

Darn it, locksandgreen .... your arguments are already starting to become boring. I was hoping for some intelligent discourse, not someone trying to preach old-fashioned, outmoded doctrines from the last century. I'm not quite ready to slam the door on you yet, though.

So ... where did you get YOUR degree in physiology?? And how, precisely, does physiology relate to one's sexual orientation? A LOT of researchers have been trying to figure that one out. Do you know something that they don't?
Do you have any idea how many professional researchers agree with the concept of asexuality in humans? It has been documented in sheep, cattle, horses and rats - that I KNOW of. There are probably others as well. The percentage in animals is, interestingly enough, about the same as that found in humans, ie: about 1%. Those poor animals must have been sexually repressed, right? They were physically perfect and had no detectable hormone disorders of any kind. (Just like most human asexuals, as a matter of fact.) The researchers checked all of the logical reasons that they could think of, but those animals were simply not interested in sex at all - with any gender - and there didn't appear to be any reason for it.

You don't get it, do you? Are you truly unable to tell the difference between sexual attraction and sexual activity?
Do you think that straight people are just repressed homosexuals?
Human asexuals aren't necessarily celibate at all. Some are far from it. The difference is that, given a choice, asexuals would probably rather be doing something else.

Oh, and Freudian slip or not, substituting "impotent" for "important" was pretty darned funny, especially when you are trying to pass yourself off as some kind of expert about human sexuality.

[The Gray Lady]

Wow, dude. Way to completely ignore me when I talk about having a pretty damn good sex life (by cultural standards as well as my own). Good job, keep it up and you'll SURELY prove your point. Yeah, you're right, I'm just sexually repressed. That I've been able to achieve simultaneous orgasms with my partner? Yep, sexual repression. That I've gone through a wide range of different activities with her, including spanking, strap-on sex, bondage, and so on and so forth? That's sexual repression too. That it was all completely my own well-informed choice, safe and healthy and consensual? Also sexual repression.

Of course now I'm going to get attacked by the "YOU'RE NOT ASEXUAL ENOUGH" brigade. Despite the fact that, while sex is enjoyable for me, I don't really have the urge to seek it out, I don't have a mental sense of excitement about it, I don't get what "sexiness" is supposed to mean, and I have to approach it from a standpoint of the purely physical in order for me to get to that level of enthusiastic consent. There is no driving force for me to connect any kind of sexual urges I have with other people, except for the fervent desire for my relationship to work out well. Otherwise, might as well just masturbate. And the times when my partner is not particularly interested in having sex (which tends to last for months, because she doesn't have a huge "sex drive" if that's what you want to call it), we're both happy just doing that (or not, depending what we're in the mood for).

The dictionary you quoted? Yeah, it was written in 1996. Of course you're not going to find asexuality in there, as defined as a sexual orientation. And proclaiming that you don't have to do any research on the topic REALLY makes us all think you're an expert about it. Especially when you make blatantly erroneous statements like that "aromintic" (I assume you mean "aromantic") is a term which is accepted by the APA, or that it's the same thing as lacking sexual attraction. (Actually, that term means lacking interest in romance/romantic relationships. And considering that I am currently IN a long-term romantic relationship, which I find entirely fulfilling? I sure hope you see can why it doesn't apply to me.)

Now, you do bring up some concerns about the word "asexual" which I can sympathize with, as I've had exactly the same concerns over a similar word (which I won't discuss here). I'd suggest that you read this blog post, where I explain why there is such confusion. It IS a misleading term, but it was chosen in order to be consistent with other labels for sexual orientation, and viewed in that light, it is intuitive. There is no reason for the term asexuality as used in the context we are talking about here (and not whatever definition you are making up in your head based on its other use) to imply that there are no sexual aspects whatsoever about a person who recognizes that they don't experience sexual attraction. (And btw, since sexual attraction is an entirely internal experience, and given that there is no possible way that even a psychologist can get inside someone else's head, how on earth do you propose that someone else is more qualified to "diagnose" me? Explain how there are any reliable external measures with which to even make a "diagnosis," and then explain to me why you think it is appropriate to say that people's sexual orientations need to be diagnosed by a professional.)

Just to reiterate, asexuality doesn't say anything about behavior. I'm not abstinent, but I still lack sexual attraction, therefore I am asexual--and I DARE you to try to prove that I'm not.

Edited to add: By the way, I accept the concept of repression as it applies to MEMORIES, since I have experienced that (and it was, by the way, totally different from my experience of asexuality). But applying it to DESIRES (especially sexual desires) is highly problematic, as it can lead to the justification of rape. Like, "Oh, she wanted it, she must have because she was wearing a short skirt. She must have just been repressing it." It is absolutely wrong for anyone, ever, to presume that they know more about what someone else wants than they do. Not only is it egotistical, but it's DANGEROUS. How many rapists do you think justify their rapes based on the idea that they knew better about what their victim wanted than the victim did? My guess is A LOT!

[locksandgreen]

You both continue to prove me correct over an over again! Your responses also show that you pay very little attention to what is being said to you. Another reply from KAGU143 full of fallacious crap and Ad Homanims offering once again absolutely no cited sources to support such opinionated, unfounded, and asinine claims. If you trying to tell me that Asexual Human beings have been documented the actually physically exist with fully functional asexual reproductive ability's; then you are full of crap. I guarantee you cannot cite a single legitimate source where a child was born from a physically active asexual human bean in a completely natural biological seance. KAGU143 do you know the difference??? the way you use "sexually repressed" continues to display your ignorance of the concept. again if you would pay attention you would realize that i know the differences better they you obviously do, because that's what this argument is about, OMG! No homosesuals are not repressed, they have associated their sexual attractions with the same sex through out the development of the child's life, just as a heterosexual does the opposite. A child is physically able to experience an orgasm at the age of five months, so according to modern physiology, an aromantic person who have made zero associations with any sex that leads to sexual arousal or attraction. This would explain why an aromantic person can be sexually aroused in a physical sense but not by attraction. The organs are still active the mental associations have not been made. This does not make you a bad or abnormal person, just different, we must all embrace our differences. like I said text book... other wise for your animals... some cases could be physical (the lack or sensory development of pheromones or soemthing to that extent), "making the case a birth defect" and also a biological case in which you would use biotechnological terms; asexual would defiantly not be one of them. I's ether a physiological or mental issue you cant not have it any other way so get over it! Unless you would argue that they where born with a different spirit or aura, in that case we would enter into a conversation I have no interest in.

There is already a word (accepted by the American Physiological association) for those who do not associate sexual arousal with any particular sex. This is a physiological and not a biological issue (as can be proven trough our extensive knowledge of the human G-nome.) There fore a correct physiological term is necessary, because Gender Identity is also a physiological term. If you understood what I meant about speaking in context this would not be such a difficult concept for you two to process. Amazingly an appropriate term has been made and guess what! It's not "asexual". The word again is aromantic, much more appropriate, because it reflects the social and physiological (where attraction lies [the mind]) aspects of sexuality and not the physical reproductive parts. And no you are wrong the term means that there is no attraction both physical an none physical there is no sexual attraction, please keep a dictionary at your side at all times it seems you have a problem with precise definitions.

Once again I'm not arguing weather or not many people use the word as if it is appropriate, or that there are dictionary's that accept the definition, I still will not negate the fact that it is a very poor and ignorant way to use the word, and it make implications that it could be a physical trait. Because the word it's self was create only and for another purpose then to define a type of sexual reproduction period!


1996 is not that for off. I wanted to prove that its is not a term that is accepted in time that slang was not accepted into the dictionary and that it is also far to soon now for it to have an actual place in the English language (one that has an authority with more precise specifications and restriction then you obviously know about); I accurately did so.

The Grey Lady

You can't really put words in my mouth

However that's what you would be doing if you couldn't just scroll up and re-read what I wrote, but you can.

You Obviously did not pay attention to what I said, for example: my quote about ad hominems. You use a few of them in your post.
If you read what I said I did not make such an ambiguous statement as if I had any right to diagnose you, or any one else for that matter; on the contrary what I said was, through an enhanced understanding of psychology, you don't need a psychologist. The most successful means of physiological healing (developed by Feud) is done through a process that really forces the person to be honest with themselves and reflect upon their past, while the physiologist uses his studies to base assumptions upon your condition. What I'm saying is basically eliminate the middle man... dig??? The only way it truly works is when the person is honest with them self, otherwise it is doomed to failure. One must be honest with themselves, face the issue head on, and accept it with out letting it stress them out or go into denial. Any one who would like to debate me on that can shut up and talk to the AA peeps, no one can tell you any better than those who know from experience.


"Edited to add: By the way, I accept the concept of repression as it applies to MEMORIES, since I have experienced that (and it was, by the way, totally different from my experience of asexuality). But applying it to DESIRES (especially sexual desires) is highly problematic, as it can lead to the justification of rape. Like, "Oh, she wanted it, she must have because she was wearing a short skirt. She must have just been repressing it." It is absolutely wrong for anyone, ever, to presume that they know more about what someone else wants than they do. Not only is it egotistical, but it's DANGEROUS. How many rapists do you think justify their rapes based on the idea that they knew better about what their victim wanted than the victim did? My guess is A LOT!" First of all this statement really doesn't make any sense at all, but I think I have pulled out what your where trying to say. Still, this is the most fallacious and ignorant statement made on the entire page. It shows that you really have done no research at all into the reason that people rape and once again proving me correct that you do not understand the concept of repression; you may need a tutor to help you with that. "Myth: People rape because they need or want sex. Fact: People do not rape because they need a sexual partner. People rape in order to humiliate and dominate someone else. 22% percent of incarcerated rapists report that they are married." ( http://www.yale.edu/consent/truth.htm) I hate to break it to you genius, but all desires function in the physiological process period so what are you talking about, I fail to see how there is apotential to justify rape in this issue, are you drunk??? Must you continue to show more and more ignorance??? Of course the fact that you use the phrase "I guess" is also a big indication you have no clue what your talking about.

Also concerning your statement:

"and given that there is no possible way that even a psychologist can get inside someone else's head," Your even wrong on this one, we have such extensive knowledge of the brain one can send electrical impulses to the brain to strike specific sensations as designated by the experimenter or applicator. You should do some research on the CIA's involvement with Brain wash and mind control, its well documented fact, and many court cases have been won by contesting victims. Like I said yes the study of physiology is respectable for it s many years of advanced accuracy's, but the industry is just a group of evil "vampires". If the elite cannot make money of of you using it, or some how control you with it, then it doesn't interest them.

If what I said seems to imply that I'm an expert then again that only makes you sound more ignorant.... because any one with a degree in any subject should know these simple things, its the freaking basics for the lords sake! I don't need to research, because they are not very complicated issues (a great deal of this I learned in high school), I really should not behaving this debate.. it is quiet sad that it is necessary (even more sad that a movement of people are tacky enough to use such a word to label them selves), in conclusion unless any one has an actual fact with a source to cite, then no one has anything else to say to me.

I guarantee you if you say asexual to some one random you have a very low chance that any one would assume you where speaking of sexual orientation, rather it is more likely that, even if they are aware of the new "movement," a physical trait will be the first thing that comes into mind. So my point is...
Is that what you really want to be the label of your orientation? One that strikes a visual reference of a creature who would typical be Physically asexual, or compel the imagination to wonder of how different you are? Then having to explain to every one intelligent you meet that your not talking about the actual meaning of the word, but a new one?

I probably forgot to mention something that I wanted to mention but I'm tired of responding to your ignorant posts. If there are typos, then deal with it I'm to tired to read over this! Any one with any intelligence will see quiet clearly neither of you are any match to debate me.


P.S. did you know in many states children where required to take calculus in school around the fifties? That is why it makes me laugh that you think I should need a degree lol put down the fiction novel and read something with a some content! Don't speak to me with out a "sound argument"