One of my Books for College States That Asexuality May Be a Disorder. Why Would It State That?

Question

Asexuality: The lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.

TadCurious · Accepted Answer

It's because it's not normal. Think of it this way: If the lack of sexual interest and desire were normal, how successful as a species do you think humans would be? And when I say "successful" I mean that biologically in terms of propagation of the species. Of course at this point we've been so successful that there's something like 7.7 billion of us on the planet and we're straining the capacities of the Earth's ecosystems. But the point still holds. Sexual drive is part of normal and healthy human functioning. And through our technology we can express that normal functioning without it leading to procreation.

FriendlyEnigma · Accepted Answer

People think everything that wasn't accepted in the 1700's is a 'disorder.' It's such a terrible mindset and i hate that some people are like that.

DrippingHoney · Accepted Answer

If it was normal, our species would die off. How can it be anything but a disorder?

NamerOfStars · Answer

Probably because they're not putting any connotation on the word "disorder". Do they define homosexuality the same way?

hellionthesagereborn · Answer

Because its a disorder. If you are not able to do or have the drive to do what you are biologically designed to do (i. e. reproduce in this case) then you have a disorder. Doesn't mean they are bad people or they shouldn't have rights, it just means they have a disorder that affects their ability in some way (in this case their ability and/or drive to reproduce). Not sure why people are deciding that if we acknowledge reality we are some how calling for harm, imagine if we stopped acknowledging other conditions as disorders like diabetes or something, things would get very bad very quickly.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

Many people view asexuality as abnormal because it is a statistical abberation.

matchrestore · Answer

Unfortunately many psychological conditions that are different from the default are called "disorders" giving them a negative connotation, when all it really means is that its departs from normal. Asexuality isn't bad, but it does depart from normal.

Berethor · Answer

Hypoactive sexual desire disorder, do you think that having a dead-like sexual desire is normal? that said it's not all bad, a person is highly unlikely to rape someone if he is sexual. :)

Astarlessnightsky · Answer

Depends on the Book.

But generally the desire to mate and reproduce is one of the most primal and basic instinct. So if someone doesn't feel the desire to do so, it's "not normal".
Like not wanting to eat or sleep.

Kurαȷ · Answer

I mean, lack of sexual attraction does seem like a functional abnormality, ergo, a disorder.
Having no drive to procreate doesn't seem like something that would exist in nature by design.

But then again, the same argument could be made about non-heterosexual people who wouldn't be able to reproduce naturally with their preferred partners.
So if the book makes a distinction between the two, it's definitely a bit hypocritical.

Jjpayne · Answer

We still have a lot to go to fully understand the human condition. I mean look at sigmond Freuds stuff back in the day it's crazy...

I think we are all just trying to understand things.

Looking at animals for example, how do they behave and how do they procreate? Do they do similar things that we do?

That's where it can get interesting. Would we call them more natural in behavior than humans?

But I can already hear someone typing and saying look, here is a study of Asexual animals... But I'm merely bringing up an idea a mere assumption not grounded in research, just an idea

Nephilim000 · Answer

I don't think of things as disorders. They are more ways to control what genes are in the pool at the moment

Rexos · Answer

Homosexuality was in a long list of other things that were viewed that way for a long time, and some people still believe in that to the point where there are a lot of countries that would kill you for being gay.
The idea that we have to procreate is a lie, non-heterosexuality is normal and has been found in thousands of species and we humans especially don't need that, the percentage of people who are interested in making kids naturally decreases when we reach certain level of development and that's normal, we're not going extinct because of that.

GoodGuyBreakingBad · Answer

I have no problem with someone whose asexual, here is what I found for you  
 t has been compared and equated with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), in that both imply a general lack of sexual attraction to anyone; HSDD has been used to medicalize asexuality, but asexuality is generally not considered a disorder or a sexual dysfunction (such as anorgasmia, anhedonia, etc.) 
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20compared%20and,%2C%20etc.)%2C%20because%20it

pigoat · Answer

Maybe they are one of those people who always say the human beings are sexual beings

R3DthatDude · Answer

To be honest I wish I had there ability.

genericname85 · Answer

because it is. just like pedophilia, transsexuality and maybe even homosexuality.

worldscolide · Answer

because it can be a disorder.. With people trying to normalize everything, its not politically correct to say that, but in a lot of cases it is a disorder, though weather or not its medical or mental is a different matter.

Thatsamazing · Answer

Well... it's not normal, is all. The overwhelming supermajority of all humans who have ever lived are not/were not that way. That's why. Doesn't mean it's inherently BAD, it just means it's not typical.

crmoore · Answer

Because anatomically and in regards to an evolution, it is. We are meant to procreate. Sexual desire is what drives that. It is normal to have sexual desires. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing to not have sexual desires. It just means you divert from what is the norm, and no where does it say that's inherently wrong.

SuccessfulHornDog · Answer

Its very simple. The science in your book is not politically aware yet. Don't worry that will be fixed soon. I laugh at the arrogant hubris of the left. They denigrate creationists for their religious beliefs. They attack anyone who doesn't tow the line of the full climate apocalypse that will be coming in 10 years (AOC) but they go along with the fact that a woman can have a penis. Forget Chromosomes. Forget DNA, Forget Science. None of that is suddenly important. We'll just change the meaning of a few words and stress others and bam we can believe the lies