PsychoSexual

Only not quite that kind of "psycho" and not quite that kind of "Sexual"

Posts tagged sexuality

60,158 notes

nekojulio:

phantomrose96:

kazifer:

Stop saying that “sex is a basic human need”.

"Give it to me straight doc, is he gonna be okay?"

"No ma’am I’m sorry but we were too late…your son just couldn’t get some. There was nothing we could do."

*mother crumbles to the floor, curses the friendzone to the heavens. Doc lowers fedora over corpse’s eyes respectfully*

FEDORA

(Source: kansasnovak, via southpawscopic)

Filed under sexuality fucking needs

36 notes

"It’s a psychological problem. Have you gone to therapy?"

redbeardace:

[Cross-posted from “The Comment Section" on Asexuality Archive]

Examples:

  • Asexualism seems more like the sexual manifestation of a personality disorder than anything else. I’d say probably schizoid.
  • Usually when someone is disinterested in sex (and does not identify as asexual) it is because of some kind of emotionally/psychologically distressing or traumatic experience(s) with sex.
  • but I also think that a person of reproductive age with absolutely no interest in sex probably has an underlying psychological, emotional or indeed physiological problem to examine.
  • Human beings sometimes have psychological, emotional, or social issues that make them celibate.
  • A good round of therapy would help most of these delusionals.

Why these comments are a problem:

Because asexuality is not a psychological problem or personality disorder.  It is a sexual orientation.

These comments are what’s called “pathologizing”.  Basically, they take something perfectly normal and legitimate, and try to turn it into a disease or disorder of some sort.  If it’s a disorder, there’s something wrong.  If it’s a disease, it’s something curable.

This kind of thinking is highly damaging.  It makes people feel like they’re broken or defective somehow, that they need fixing, even though nothing is actually wrong with them at all.  Often, that feeling of brokenness will gnaw at someone’s thoughts, and can even cause anxiety or depression itself.

Additionally, people try to use various psychological conditions to explain away and invalidate asexuality in people with those conditions.  “Oh, she’s not asexual, she’s just autistic.”  “Oh, he’s not asexual, he’s just schizoid.”  Here’s the thing, though.  If someone is asexual and something else, they’re still asexual.  Even if they’re asexual because of something else, they’re still asexual.

Beyond all of that, the American Psychiatric Association recognizes asexuality and does not consider it a problem or a disorder.  In the DSM-V, it mentions asexuality, and says that if a person is asexual, then they should not be diagnosed with a sexual interest or desire disorder.  In other words, it’s not a problem, nothing’s wrong.

How to respond:

  • Point out that asexuality is not a disease or a disorder.
  • Explain how hurtful and damaging pathologizing asexuality can be.
  • Explain how asexuality can coexist with psychological or physical conditions.
  • If you have a copy of the DSM-V handy, quote it to them.

(via southpawscopic)

Filed under sexuality mental health people identity

172 notes

"I Wrote The Dictionary!"

redbeardace:

[Cross-posted from “The Comment Section" on Asexuality Archive]

Examples:

  • If you’re asexual, it doesn’t mean you don’t experience sexual attraction. If you’re asexual, it means you have sex with yourself. It’s in science. Something about bacteria.
  • What you describe is aromantic autosexuality rather than asexuality.
  • Isn’t demisexual just another way of saying “this is what a healthy, sexually intimate relationship should be like”?
  • Pure asexuality means no sexual contact at all—-any sexual contact defeats the meaning of asexuality.
  • Secondly, the etymology of the word asexual has always referred to a species that does not require sex for reproduction. Putting all this together, what i see here is a poorly chosen way to describe a persons lack of sexual desires.
  • That’s ridiculous. Another word for it is a eunich who have been around since biblical times.
  • Why is “unattracted” NOT a more accurate word for the situation being discussed than “asexual”?
  • This guy probably doesn’t know that from the 19th century up until the 1960′s the word “asexual” was a cover for people not wanting to acknowledge that Tchaikovsky, for example, was homosexual.
  • Asexual, as I have come to know the term refers to someone who enjoys having sex with any gender but has not emotional attachment to them.
  • Here is my big problem with using the word asexual inclusively to encompass many who are not actually non-sexual.
  • Asexual sounds more like Anhedonia
  • Most of them aren’t actually asexual, but instead autosexual.

Why these comments are a problem:

People who make comments like these are convinced that asexuality is all wrong because it doesn’t match the definition in their dictionary.  Often, it’s an imaginary dictionary that exists only in their minds, but they will occasionally go to a physical dictionary to “prove” their point.

In the imaginary dictionary case, they try to invalidate asexuality by offering another word that they feel describes things better than “asexual”.  You’ll see words like “non-sexual”, “autosexual”, or “solo-sexual” thrown around frequently, with the occasional “analloerotic” or “anhedonia” thrown in for good measure.  Sometimes, they’ll add additional restrictions and qualifications to the meaning of asexual. “Asexual means no arousal, too.”  “Asexual means no masturbation, too.”

In the physical dictionary case, they try to invalidate asexuality by showing that our definition isn’t present.  “Look, it’s all about bacteria!”  “Look, it means no sex organs!”  They’ll claim that the word is already taken and that we have to find a new word to use, because apparently words can only have one meaning. (Like “gay” and “straight”, which have only had one meaning ever.)  They don’t understand that language adapts and evolves and grows all the time, and that it’s just a snapshot of common understanding at a point in time, and not a rulebook for the only words that can ever be used.

In either case, the true problem is that they refuse to listen to what asexual people are telling them asexuality is.  Their outsider “expertise” is far more important than our actual experience.

(Plus, my dictionary, an actual physical ten pound block of processed wood pulp from 1999, has a definition for “asexual” that mentions sexual desire.  Not quite the current definition, but close enough for horseshoes.)

How to respond:

  • Explain what the commonly accepted definition of asexuality is and is not.
  • Point out that dictionaries describe language and will change as the language does.  If you know of a dictionary that mentions the sexual orientation definition of asexuality, mention it.
  • “Does your dictionary have ‘homonym’ or ‘polysemous’?”
  • Give examples of common words with multiple meanings.

(via southpawscopic)

Filed under sexuality identity labels language

7,423 notes

scribeling:

Do you ever go to your fridge because you’re hungry, but once you open it you just stare inside and want none of it? You open your pantry but still nothing appeals to you. Maybe someone even comes and suggests something, and even though you don’t know what you want, you still know that everything they said isn’t right. So you just stand around confused and hungry for no reason.

That’s what it’s like to be an asexual with a sex drive.

(via southpawscopic)

Filed under EXACTLY fucking sexuality

3,518 notes

anagnori:

When I see people making snide comments about gray-asexual and demisexual people, they always seem to miss the point of why those terms exist.

I suspect that many of the anti-gray, anti-demi people think that gray and demi folks invented these concepts as ways to claim to be oppressed, and to appropriate LGBT+ people’s struggles. I see the “special snowflake” claim trotted out a lot, too; there’s this widespread belief that gray and demi people are “normal” but want to appear different. Sometimes this even bleeds into misogynistic territory, like “All women are like that,” or “You’re slut-shaming people.”

But the thing so many of the anti-gray and anti-demi people don’t realize is that it does not matter how common, or how “normal” gray-asexuality or demisexuality might be. These words were invented to help people understand themselves and figure out how their sexuality worked. Language evolves to reflect the needs of the people who speak it; we invent words all the time so that we can discuss what makes us similar or different, and so that we can communicate those differences to other people.

The fact that so many people have suddenly started identifying as gray-asexual or demisexual is not a sign that these identities are fads. It is a sign that many people find these words useful and important for understanding their feelings and needs. The existence of these words helps people mark the limits and the development of their sexuality, so that they can make better decisions about what kinds of relationships, lifestyles and sexual activities will work best for them. These words are tools that empower people to take control of their bodies, beliefs, and self-esteem instead of passively trying to follow what society tells them is “normal.” And isn’t that kind of empowerment what the sexual liberation movement is all about?

(via southpawscopic)

Filed under sex sexuality identity labels

3,264 notes

panpuru:

panpuru:

ughgh ok we seriously need words to describe identities with matching romantic/sexual identities, as well as non-matching romantic/sexual identities

examples: homoromantic asexual (a non-matching identity) and homoromantic homosexual (a matching identity) 

I’m not imaginative or word-savvy enough to create names for these kinds of identities but uh yooo if any1 wants to it would be sooo appreciated 

OK SO THE AMAZING AND TALENTED SARAH DID EXACTLY THIS AND CREATED TWO BEAUTIFUL NEW WORDS: 

perioriented - “matching” identity

varioriented - "non-matching" identity

While the concepts actually do need a general word, I think they should be more self-explanatory ones. Varioriented may be fairly easy to pick up on & make sense of but where does “peri”oriented come from? Is that prefix really used enough to understand it?

Still a better start than “cross-sexual” though, that’s for sure.

(via aromanticaardvark)

Filed under identity romantic orientation sexuality

61 notes

Technically I’m “demisexual”; why the label is problematic

burnsietransitioning:

I remember reading in my human sexuality class that about 63% of Americans had a “relational” view of sexual activity( i.e. 63% of Americans believe that one should only have sex with people they love.), 19% had a “traditional” view of sexuality(they believe sex should only happen between people who are married), and 18% had a “casual” view of sexual activity(they believe that sex is always fine as long as its between consenting partners).

Basically, the pattern of only engaging in sexual activity with people one loves and has a deep connection with, is the pattern that the vast majority of Americans follow.  The majority of people(at least in the USA) are technically demisexual.  Why have a label that sounds like a sexual orientation, but is confusing because it actually refers to a behavior pattern as opposed to an orientation, when it is the dominant behavior pattern?

It’s not like the word cisgender, used to describe individuals that do not suffer from gender dysphoria and are comfortable in their assigned gender, because that word is necessary because it helps to reduce the othering of trans people.  Rather, the label of demisexual appears to be more along the lines of the dominant group in society inventing a term that others the minority as deviant. Demisexuality as a label is problematic because it characterizes those who do not use it to describe themselves as sexually promiscuous and/or disinterested in relationships that involve emotional depth.  

Terms like cisgender and neurotypical are different because, while describing the majority of people, these terms first began to be used by the minority(people who are not cisgender or neurotypical) because they describe the majority in terms that do not other the minority, whereas before their mainstream usage cisgender and neurotypical individuals were usually described as “normal”, and it doesn’t take much to see how that’s problematic.  By contrast, the label “demisexuality” others the minority. and that’s why it is problematic.

Except that demisexuality has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual activity or who you have sex with.

Demisexuality describes HOW you experience sexual attraction to someone (as in, it’s only ever possible to experience said attraction to someone after spending quite a bit of time bonding with them, it’s never something that just happens upon meeting or hardly knowing someone).

Maybe that is more common than people think, but in a society where we frequently hear phrases like “I’d do them” that indicate sexual attraction upon first seeing someone/not knowing them at all, a term like demisexual can still help people who don’t ever feel that way find some solidarity. 

So yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with having sex. Your entire post is pointless & just spreads misinformation.

I don’t think there even is a word that describes someone who has sex with only people they’re in intimate relationships with =/ 

(Source: burnsietrans)

Filed under demisexuality demisexual othering sexuality mislabeled

201 notes

thorsockrock:

Tons of people have re-blogged this noting how offensive and problematic it is, especially for a blog like queersecrets which promises to protect us from hateful secrets. I mailed them yesterday explaining that this was what a lot of hate was prefaced with or started as, asking if it was really appropriate to be posted on their blog. Some handful of stuff has been posted since then and still no reply.
Unfollow. I shouldn’t have to put up with hate from a community which had promised me a space safe from that. Any aces or allies out there, I suggest you do the same. It’s not worth it.

That’s really fucking disappointing they didn’t address this at all. 
I don’t find the message itself hateful but yeah, this kind of thing is exactly what breeds bigotry, or at least dismisses/neglect problems asexuals face when they arise. It should never ever have been posted on a site like this.
Fuck you queersecrets. 

thorsockrock:

Tons of people have re-blogged this noting how offensive and problematic it is, especially for a blog like queersecrets which promises to protect us from hateful secrets. I mailed them yesterday explaining that this was what a lot of hate was prefaced with or started as, asking if it was really appropriate to be posted on their blog. Some handful of stuff has been posted since then and still no reply.

Unfollow. I shouldn’t have to put up with hate from a community which had promised me a space safe from that. Any aces or allies out there, I suggest you do the same. It’s not worth it.

That’s really fucking disappointing they didn’t address this at all. 

I don’t find the message itself hateful but yeah, this kind of thing is exactly what breeds bigotry, or at least dismisses/neglect problems asexuals face when they arise. It should never ever have been posted on a site like this.

Fuck you queersecrets. 

(Source: queersecrets)

Filed under sexuality orientation LGBTQA community