science

14949 readers

35 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

210

Asexuality Is Finally Breaking Free from Medical Stigma (www.scientificamerican.com)

submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave to c/science

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

New research on asexuality shows why it’s so important for doctors and therapists to distinguish between episodes of low libido and a consistent lack of sexual attraction

…

Over the past two decades psychological studies have shown that asexuality should be classified not as a disorder but as a stable sexual orientation akin to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Both cultural awareness and clinical medicine have been slow to catch on. It's only recently that academic researchers have begun to look at asexuality not as an indicator of health problems but as a legitimate, underexplored way of being human.

In biology, the word “asexual” typically gets used in reference to species that reproduce without sex, such as bacteria and aphids. But in some species that do require mating to have offspring, such as sheep and rodents, scientists have observed individuals that don't appear driven to engage in the act.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] givesomefucks 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (33 children)

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.

[–] skybreaker 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] givesomefucks 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But neither are binary things... People can be asexual and/or aromantic in lots of different ways to various degrees.

And both are related to oxytocin. Either production or uptake, maybe both.

No two people are exactly the same.

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.

load more comments (31 replies)