Asexuality

[NewEdit617]

Hi everyone,

I'm 27, successful in my career, excited about my interests, generally happy with my self and my life, and asexual. By this I mean I'm not interested in sex. Starting in adolescence I was attracted to members of the opposite sex, but I never felt a desire for intercourse itself. I never think about it, I have never masturbated, and I have no interest in doing so.

Despite being told that I am attractive and interesting, and having multiple men express interest in dating me, I did not agree to have a boyfriend until I was 25. I was attracted to his values and seeming shared passion and enthusiasm for life.

Despite finding my boyfriend attractive and despite admiring his values, I still have no desire for sex after two years of dating. I enjoy emotional intimacy, kissing, and some touching, but I have zero interest in sex itself. It seems like it would be boring and a waste of time, and I'd rather be working on a personal project. I have not been able to bring myself to have actual sex with him. I resent his constant advances, and he is frustrated and disappointed by my lack of reciprocity.

But my question is not about whether we are compatible-- it is on the objectivist view of asexuality. Asexuality is not commonly accepted as valid; the prevailing mainstream idea is that people who are not interested in sex are repressed abuse victims or closet homosexuals. I would think that the objectivist view would say that asexuals have some flawed premise-- perhaps a malevolent universe principle that prevents them from wanting to experience enjoyment? But I don't feel that. I have a rich and full life otherwise, and I honestly have just never felt a desire for sex. I only start to feel badly about my asexuality due to the problems it causes in the relationship. So I would like to know-- would the objectivist framework allow that it is possible to be asexual yet still mentally and philosophically healthy? If not, what faulty premise would be causing asexuality?

[aequalsa]

would the objectivist framework allow that it is possible to be asexual yet still mentally and philosophically healthy? If not, what faulty premise would be causing asexuality?

Based on your description, I think that this is more of a psychological(or perhaps physiological)issue than a philosophical one.

The only potential area where philosophy might play a part is with regard to your relationship. I assume that you realize that being asexual puts you in a pretty extreme minority and that most people, including your boyfriend it seems, punctuate that intimacy you crave with sexual acts. I don't mean to accuse you of any sort of intentional dishonesty, but I think that fairness requires that you be extremely upfront about the fact that he will never have his needs for intimacy met.

If you are clear about that and he accepts it, than all is well and good, but my guess is that either you have not been as clear as is necessary or he has not accepted it as true and permanent since he keeps trying even after two years. I can't conjecture as to the details but I can't imagine how there is not, at the least some level of serious evasion on his part.

[Maximus]

The fact that you have never had sex is probably why you think it's boring. I most certainly is not. You need to loosen up a bit and give it a try. You may find you like it after all.

[CapitalistSwine]

Normally I would not give such advice and while I understand it is slightly unorthodox...I honestly would suggest that even if you don't have a direct urge to do so that, perhaps, when you are interesting in kissing/touching as you stated in your post, perhaps be willing to go the extra mile and try it out once. While it could just as easily be a consequence of many other things, I think if you honestly wish to figure this out you need to cross this out from the possibilities. Have sex, not masturbation, because they are different experiences.

If that is not the case then it could range from anything from a psychological-manifestation or even hormone levels (which can be adjusted medicinally). The least likely option is that this is just a permanent characteristic of yourself because, frankly, the incidence rate for that within the studied populations has resoundly been around 1%. Meaning it is almost guaranteed to be something else. But yes if there is not a change in your views and interest in intercourse after having do so I would take the aforementioned advice and make it clear what the situation is for your boyfriend so that he is aware.

Edited September 28, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[whYNOT]

Hello NewEdit,

There's good advice above, regarding psychology, physiology, sexual experimentation, and honesty, all of which I believe you should consider, if you haven't yet.

Honesty is a good place to start this - not honesty so much with your boyfriend - but the honesty you have shown with yourself.

I feel it's very creditable that you have faced up to things in this way - to know yourself so deeply.

But just one thing, are you sure the label of "asexual", is completely valid?

Of course, only you will know, after all the thoughts and feelings you've had, and information you've researched, and past experiences, if this 'self-diagnosis' is really warranted.

All I'm pointing out is that sometimes such conclusions concerning oneself can become self-fulfilling, or premature, or self-delimiting.

Anyway, there's a lot of info you haven't shared, and if you don't think this is too personal, may I ask:

Haven't you, not for a single second in the past, way back to puberty, felt sexual desire?

Have you aspired to getting married in the future?

Do you imagine having a child?

Would you be very happy with the idea of living for the forseeable future, outside of a conventional relationship, and being alone?

Do you believe yourself to be capable of romantic love?

Why continue with your boyfriend, seeing the pain it causes you both?

(BTW, I certainly don't believe at this stage that your premises are faulty, or your universe view is 'malevolent'.

Far from it; you portray a very good sense of life, imo.)

Here's the way I see it in a nutshell:

Will sex enhance your life, or not?

If not, and you are finally convinced of it, then I don't believe ever that you should try to force yourself. (Beyond 'experimenting', if you choose that route.)

Your ongoing and obvious happiness and self-esteem are all that's important.

Because that's the bottom line - enjoying YOUR life via rational selfishness, and volition. Objectivism will never require that one becomes

conventionally "normal", sexually, or otherwise.

(To be clear, I am not qualified to give psychological advice - this is based on my own observations and thinking.)

All the best.

[NewEdit617]

Hi everyone,

I appreciate your responses.

The main question can be summed up as: "does objectivism hold that it is immoral to be asexual?" As I'll describe below, I have tried the suggestions people presented, yet I still do not feel a sex drive. I want to know if it is morally OK for me to just pursue my rational passions without being in a sexual relationship, or does asexuality necessarily mean I hold bad premises that need straightening? I know I would be a lot happier without feeling like I "should" have sex, and the only reason I feel like I "should" have sex is because sex is allegedly an expression of one's highest values. So when I do not feel sexual, I worry that I might be guilt of some moral transgression that is preventing me from living a full objectivist life-- even though that statement seems contrary to how I feel about myself.

aequalsa - I've made it quite clear to my BF, and we talk about it very frequently. You are right about the evasion. He does not "get it" and keeps trying, in the hopes that I will be "comfortable enough" (his words) for real sex, or in the hopes that I will come to like it. I have told him time and again that that may never happen. It is a huge source of stress for me, too, as I feel guilty for being unable to give someone I love what he wants. Things can't go on like this much longer.

Maximus - I have tried. I've done clothes off, partial penetration, oral, and way more than I am comfortable with, etc. We do this every week and I still dislike and resent it every time. It feels like a terrible duty... something that I am "supposed" to like rather than something I actually enjoy.

Capitalist - see above comment to Maximus (I have tried). While I believe you that masturbation and sex are different, my reason for mentioning it was to show that I've never had the desire for sexual exploration of any kind. If asexuality is a psychological manifestation, do you have any ideas for what the psychological flaw could be? If it is hormonal (and it may well be), does that mean I *should* correct it with medicine? In other words, would it be morally unacceptable to not take the medicine and remain asexual?

[NewEdit617]

Hi whyNOT, and thank you for your response. I didn't include you in the previous comment because we must have been writing at the same time!

You're right about self-fulfilling prophecies, but I truly do not believe that is what is going on here. I have tried to be sexual (explained in prior comment) and have wanted to be for the sake of my boyfriend, but it still has not happened.

Haven't you, not for a single second in the past, way back to puberty, felt sexual desire?

No. I feel romantic and intimate desire, absolutely. I want to be emotionally close to someone and share the deepest parts of my psyche with him... a sort of "mental sex" would be a good way of describing it... but it's not a physical desire.

Have you aspired to getting married in the future?

No, I never saw that as part of my life plan. When I met my boyfriend I wasn't seeking a relationship, but I admired him and his values so the relationship "happened" from there. But I've always been happy alone doing my own things and working on my own projects. There is nothing better than waking up in my own bed in my own house to greet the day that is mine alone.

Do you imagine having a child?

Never wanted children; prefer focusing on my career, side-business, hobbies, and friends.

Would you be very happy with the idea of living for the forseeable future, outside of a conventional relationship, and being alone?

Yes, this is what I always imagined. I never sought to have a boyfriend. Now that I do, it seems too strange to go back to being single... I won't know how and a huge part of my life will be lacking. But if I really allow myself to think about my deepest values... they do involve me being alone (mostly because I haven't found a way to reconcile pursuing all my interests with having enough time for another person).

Do you believe yourself to be capable of romantic love?

In fact, I think I am a lot more intimate than many sexual people are. I constantly want to share my deepest values with another person, and feel emotional closeness on a romantic level (as opposed to a friendship level). I want a male companion who loves me, and I him... I just express romantic love more emotionally rather than physically.

Why continue with your boyfriend, seeing the pain it causes you both?

This is a very valid question... I wrote over 30 pages trying to figure it out on my private journal! ;-) I think the main reason is that I keep questioning whether there is just something psychologically or morally wrong with me, that, if corrected, would make me have a normal sex drive. All the evidence I experience tells me that is not the case-- I am genuinely and honestly asexual and I am genuinely OK with that. But I do not want to risk losing a good man if there is even the slightest chance that it is *my* philosophy or *my* premises that need correcting. I want to be absolutely sure that I am OK or morally "allowed" to be asexual, before I stop trying to change myself in that sense.

Thank you for your comments about my sense of life. Although this is an internet message board and we do not know each other, I really appreciate your recognition.

"Your ongoing and obvious happiness and self-esteem are all that's important." Thank you also for that reminder. :-)

[Eiuol]

The main question can be summed up as: "does objectivism hold that it is immoral to be asexual?"

I see no reason to think asexuality is immoral. I've never heard any Objectivist say anything about whether a person *should* have sex. Rand in particular only said that it is good and is proper when involving important values. If a person doesn't want sex, that's their own loss, but in your case, it's not even a loss at all. If it is hormonal as you speculate, the way to decide what you should do is whether or not fixing the imbalance or whatever will ultimately improve your life, say, improving the relationship with your boyfriend. Still, you wouldn't want to change anything for his sake. Does being asexual harm YOUR life? You wouldn't want to go changing things because it bothers other people, or if other people don't quite understand.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Eiuol

[JASKN]

If you were to go the next step from your current level of introspection and conclusions, I think it would need to be with the help of a psychologist. As aequalsa said, it is more psychological than philosophical. You have already concluded that you are OK with yourself the way you are at the moment. The only reason you believe there might be something wrong is because everyone else around you lives and feels differently. You've exhausted all of your own ideas(/"resources"), so the only thing left to do is examine yourself in more psychological detail. I know that I am not qualified to provide that level of detail, and I'm not sure how far most others could go on this forum, either.

Whatever you do from here, I think your current situation is probably unfair to your boyfriend. Even if you were to change and become (more? You mentioned enjoying kissing) sexual, it will likely not be fast enough or sexual enough to fulfill his needs, if he is typical to most; most people need sex regularly.

[Maximus]

Have you had your hormone levels checked?

[Alfa]

If it is hormonal (and it may well be), does that mean I *should* correct it with medicine? In other words, would it be morally unacceptable to not take the medicine and remain asexual?

Yes, as it is something that keeps you from fully enjoying romantic relationships. Hormonal imbalances can also cause health issues(or be the symptom of underlying health issues). You should really see an endocrinologist, and even make sure to get second or third opinions.

[JayR]

If it is hormonal (and it may well be), does that mean I *should* correct it with medicine? In other words, would it be morally unacceptable to not take the medicine and remain asexual?

No, it would be morally unacceptable to take the medication against your own will with the aim of pleasing someone else. If you tried the meds and didnt like the effect, you have no moral obligation to continue. If the idea of medicating is not appealing, you have no obligation to start. If the strain is too much to bear for your boyfriend, some sort of compromise is neccessary between you that wont result in either of you betraying your values. As to the second part of Alfas advice, yes, you should see a doctor just to be assured theres no serious underlying cause. Although I would guess its just who you are, people are born tabula rasa, if theres no instinctual drive for sex, it logically follows that some people just wont be interested it.

j..

[Alfa]

What i'm talking about is not taking medications out of some false sense of obligation. Romantic relationships are very important in life, and if something stands in the way of enjoying them it's a problem that needs to be solved. Asexuality is bad(i'm not saying immoral, but bad), there is no value in it and it keeps you from enjoying something very valuable. That's also a value that cannot be properly judged until you have the ability to do so, and making important decisions out of ignorance is not very rational.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Alfa

[Dante]

No, it would be morally unacceptable to take the medication against your own will with the aim of pleasing someone else.

It depends on who that someone else is, and the value of that person to you. Being an Objectivist doesn't mean you should never compromise on any values in a relationship. I may not value going to theatre productions in and of itself, but if my girlfriend likes us going to them together, and her happiness is important enough to me, I'll go. Furthermore, it wouldn't be a sacrifice on my part. I do gain value from going, although it's indirect rather than direct value, stemming from her enjoyment. In this case, the conflict of values isn't any different than the conflict of values I face every day when trying to decide whether to spend my time on, say, cooking a meal or studying. Both things are valuable to me in an absolute sense, but because time is limited, they cannot both be achieved, and this is where I need a clear hierarchy of values. Similarly here, there are two values which cannot both be achieved (making someone I value happy and taking the medicine), and there's no a priori way to determine which is the best way to go without referring to my personal hierarchy.

[JASKN]

Romantic relationships are very important in life, and if something stands in the way of enjoying them it's a problem that needs to be solved. Asexuality is bad(i'm not saying immoral, but bad), there is no value in it and it keeps you from enjoying something very valuable. That's also a value that cannot be properly judged until you have the ability to do so, and making important decisions out of ignorance is not very rational.

Sexuality (a sexual relationship) is valuable because it links sexual desire with the psychological (and other) benefits of companionship. It's a more robust relationship than without the sexual element.

Assuming that asexuality (complete lack of sexual desire) is an actual, legitimate human phenomenon, that sexual desire can actually be lacking from someone's person, then that kind of relationship is not only not a value, but impossible.

[Dante]

The main question can be summed up as: "does objectivism hold that it is immoral to be asexual?" As I'll describe below, I have tried the suggestions people presented, yet I still do not feel a sex drive. I want to know if it is morally OK for me to just pursue my rational passions without being in a sexual relationship, or does asexuality necessarily mean I hold bad premises that need straightening?

In my view, it is perfectly acceptable for you to pursue whatever passions captivate you and ignore sex if it does not appeal to you. I know Objectivism has a particular theory of sex as the physical expression of valuation of another person, but I don't see why sex is necessarily the only or primary physical expression of valuation. For most people it is, because of their sex drive, but if you don't have one, then I don't see how you could expect yourself to see sex as an expression of value. Whether or not sex is an integral part of the identity of a human being seems to me to be a scientific question, one which I do not know the answer to. I would encourage you to be true to yourself and your own passions. You should strive to rid yourself of all unearned guilt, and unless there's some deeper psychological problem that needs correcting, you therefore shouldn't feel guilty over this.

Being asexual is quite abnormal, obviously, so if it were me that would definitely give me pause to double-check that there isn't some deeper issue at work. I think the advice about getting hormone levels checked, etc is sound. Seeing a psychologist may be a good idea, to try to investigate the roots of the lack of a sex drive. Whether or not it's possible to be asexual and healthy is a question for the health experts, not philosophy. However, at the end of the day, if you find nothing wrong with yourself other than the fact that you don't conform to the expectations of others, I'd advise you to respect your own identity.

[Alfa]

Sexuality (a sexual relationship) is valuable because it links sexual desire with the psychological (and other) benefits of companionship. It's a more robust relationship than without the sexual element.

Assuming that asexuality (complete lack of sexual desire) is an actual, legitimate human phenomenon, that sexual desire can actually be lacking from someone's person, then that kind of relationship is not only not a value, but impossible.

Yes, however in the context to which I responded there was an assumption that the asexuality can be fixed. In that case a sexual relationship is no longer impossible.

To make an analogy; if someone is crippled and unable to walk, would it be rational to refuse treatment to be able to walk again(assuming such treatment were possible)? I don't think so, unless there was some major issue with the cost/benefit.

Asexuality can obviously have some crippling effects to many relationships, and therefore it would be wise to recieve treatment for it - if, in fact, treatment is available. And if nothing can be done about, then it's a whole different matter.

[JayR]

It depends on who that someone else is, and the value of that person to you. Being an Objectivist doesn't mean you should never compromise on any values in a relationship. I may not value going to theatre productions in and of itself, but if my girlfriend likes us going to them together, and her happiness is important enough to me, I'll go.

I understand what youre saying with regard to compromise for the sake of someone you value, and I agree, but having sex cant be compared with going to the theater. People dont go to prison for forcing someone to the theater. If you mean simply compromising by trying the meds, than yes, Id say give it a shot. However I still stand by my post in that she has no moral obligation either way.

j..

[Dante]

I understand what youre saying with regard to compromise for the sake of someone you value, and I agree, but having sex cant be compared with going to the theater. People dont go to prison for forcing someone to the theater. If you mean simply compromising by trying the meds, than yes, Id say give it a shot. However I still stand by my post in that she has no moral obligation either way.

j..

Yes, I was speaking of taking the medication; there's certainly no obligation to have sex.

[CapitalistSwine]

Capitalist - see above comment to Maximus (I have tried). While I believe you that masturbation and sex are different, my reason for mentioning it was to show that I've never had the desire for sexual exploration of any kind. If asexuality is a psychological manifestation, do you have any ideas for what the psychological flaw could be? If it is hormonal (and it may well be), does that mean I *should* correct it with medicine? In other words, would it be morally unacceptable to not take the medicine and remain asexual?

I read a decent amount about sex. What I mean by this is new research regarding sexuality, as I have always had an interest, for some reason, in how these things actually work (and it is not as simple as we like to believe, we are still trying to figure out a lot of it). Based on the information you have given regarding your feelings/responses to actually attempting to engage in these acts, and given the fact that this has been long term, I am very strongly of the opinion that this may be a hormone level issue. Apparently Maximus is of a similar feeling as he has iterated that a few posts before this one. Someone also suggested you see a psychologist. This I do not agree with.

What I would suggest as an all-in-one solution to your current situation regarding sexual drive is that you have an initial meeting with a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist will likely have had more experience or knowledge regarding these issues and is also able to prescribe different kinds of medications. I would find a rating or reviews on this psychiatrist first so you make sure to get one worth their salt and that does not have a habit of over-medicating problems). If this is a hormonal issue or something related he likely would be able to tell you after some basic discussion and suggest that you get a hormone level test, if it is something psychological he can probably give you an idea of what it might be and assist you with that. Just make sure you mention to him that you are interested in finding out if this is a psychological issue, a hormone level issue, or if this is actually, although statistically very unlikely, that you are actually asexual.

As for the immoral and regarding Objectivism stuff I think everyone has clarified that more than enough already.

As a side-note, you should not feel guilty for failing to address your boyfriends sexual wants. That is all on him. You have made it completely clear to him that there is a good chance you may never have sexual desire. It is his own evasions, that he chose to make, that have perpetuated this situation for him, not you. I also hope you are not "trying these things every week" under pressure by him to procure a desire for the activity. If that is what is the source of those frequently occurring failures to procure a sexual drive, then I would say that is very unhealthy in a number of ways. If you are choosing to do that solely based on your own want to experiment and see if you can procure one, then of course there is nothing wrong with that. You often create a dichotomy between being satisfied with this state and being immoral or holding faulty premises. There are a number of causes for things like this and they are not always mental and they cannot always be figured out easily. You should be happy with who you are in this respect, regardless of if you ever gain a sex drive. You can still pursue an answer (and potential fix) for what you see as an issue, via a psychiatrist or hormone level testing or what have you, while still being ok with who you are. There is nothing immoral about that in this case.

[JASKN]

You should not feel guilty for failing to address your boyfriends sexual wants. That is all on him. You have made it completely clear to him that there is a good chance you may never have sexual desire. It is his own evasions, that he chose to make, that have perpetuated this situation for him, not you.

It is not all on him. If your girlfriend maintains a sexual relationship with you with actual regular sex, it's not evasion to believe that she is interested in sex, even if she says she "might not ever be" that much. Virtually everyone that exists everywhere wants sex. I think it is reasonable for someone to expect his girlfriend to "get over it" and get more interested in sex over time.

Also, if she does choose to try finding an answer, if there is any, a (good) psychologist would go well with other suggestions already mentioned. Why do you think otherwise?

Edited September 29, 2010 by JASKN

[NewEdit617]

Woah, so many things to respond to here! I apologize if I miss anything.

To those who have asked, no, I have not had my hormone levels checked. However, I posed that question in a forum of asexuals. Most of the people there had had endocrine tests, and nothing showed up abnormally. (Of course, I cannot speculate on their psychological or philosophical health.) Current scientific research points to sexuality not being associated with one's current hormonal levels, but to biochemical activity that occurred at the embryonic stage, though.

Eiuol and JayR, I have found your responses particularly illuminating and helpful.

Dante, that is an interesting thought on choosing the value of your girlfriend's happiness over competing values. The distinction here is that you would be doing something she likes that is neutral to you. Engaging in intercourse is something I dislike, so doing it for the sake of my boyfriend's happiness would be self-sacrifice.

JASKN: "Assuming that asexuality (complete lack of sexual desire) is an actual, legitimate human phenomenon, that sexual desire can actually be lacking from someone's person, then that kind of relationship is not only not a value, but impossible." I will ponder this. It makes good sense on a first read.

Dante, I like this also: "I know Objectivism has a particular theory of sex as the physical expression of valuation of another person, but I don't see why sex is necessarily the only or primary physical expression of valuation. For most people it is, because of their sex drive, but if you don't have one, then I don't see how you could expect yourself to see sex as an expression of value." That is helpful for me to think about. Actually, that entire comment has made me feel a little better (in the sense of not accepting an unearned guilt).

And CapitalistSwine, thank you also for your thorough response and suggestions. I hold a strong distrust for psychologists and psychiatrists alike, though. Even the "good" ones have their own agendas. What I dislike is the idea that asexuality is rooted in some kind of psychological evasion, repression, or "emotion-blocking." I sincerely expect a psychiatrist to tell me I need 20 years of therapy to diagnose some deep-seated trauma that happened when I was 2 months old. Your point about not feeling guilty I will try to take to heart (mind). I've been feeling that a lot lately, which is only increasing the problem and my resentment. It is very helpful to read that many of you do not think there is immorality or malevolent universe premise causing this asexuality.

Thank you for all of the thoughtful comments.

[NewEdit617]

JASKN,

But what is really going on here is that he continued to make advances despite me crying and having emotional meltdowns, telling him I feel "invaded," and telling him at least five to ten times over the course of two years that the pressure to have sex was more than I could handle and I saw no course of action but for him to back off or for us to break up. (Yes, I am clearly morally at fault for this-- for continuing to engage in something I hated. In my "defense," if any is possible, I cared about his happiness enough to try doing what he wanted, though, immorally, it was at the expense of my own happiness. I also wanted to be absolutely certain that I wasn't immoral or otherwise psychologically screwed up-- for if I was, asexuality would be my fault, and I should not punish him for my flaws that I should instead work on overcoming.) So, now that I think about it, I don't think it is "reasonable" for him to expect me to "get over it." I have made it clear how much I dislike it and how much his advances and pressures to have sex distress me.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The fact of the matter is, that even if there were something "wrong" with you, he's very much in the wrong for forcing the issue as you just described and you should drop him whether or not your lack of interest in sex is a moral failing on your part. (Mind you, I don't believe that it is--I am saying your best course of action--drop the way-overly-pushy creep--doesn't depend on whether or not it is the case.)

[Imogen]

Have you had your hormone levels checked?

Low thyroid symptoms

Low testosterone symptoms for women

From the above article about low testosterone in women:

Research reveals that a woman's sexual health is greatly affected by low testosterone levels. The hormone is directly linked to libido, making it imperative to address immediate replenishment of testosterone.

If you do have hormonal imbalances (that could be primary and therefore you would not notice the symptoms of onset, such as loss or gain of weight), while your libido may or may not be affected, not addressing them will result in other health and quality-of-life issues.

I agree with dropping the guy, but I strongly recommend investigating this further for yourself. It would be sad to end up in cardiac arrest at a young age because you didn't address what you assumed was an idiosyncratic disinterest in sex.