Asexuality

[NoxSineStellae]

Does the RCC have a stance on people who describe themselves as Asexual - no sexual attraction to anyone? I’ve known several such people (one of my very best friends first dated boys, then girls, before she realized she didn’t actually like either in that sense, though she’s a wonderful social person) and wonder if it’s also considered “disordered”.

I’m not talking about a choice to be chaste/celibate. Some of the asexuals I’ve been friends with are completely chaste, not out of choice, but because it’s the way they are. It’s not a sacrifice in any way. They also don’t seem to be “lacking” in any way, or have medical problems or a history of abuse - they’re simply not interested in any sort of sexual/romantic activity whatsoever, in the same way that other people have not the slightest inclination to participate in sports.

So if God is calling us all to be hetero, are people who aren’t, even if they aren’t homosexual, viewed as disordered by the church?

 

[puzzleannie]

the Church does not have any official position on anyone’s personality unless it is affected by a grave disorder which presents a strong temptation to sin. There are plenty of people who simply fall into that personality type. Asexual is not an accurate description by the way, that would be someone lacking in physical secondary sex characteristics. My guess is there is whole army of people out their puzzled and bored by the overemphasis on sex in the pop culture which is promoted by those with the opposite personality type, hyper-sexed.

 

[NoxSineStellae]

the Church does not have any official position on anyone’s personality unless it is affected by a grave disorder which presents a strong temptation to sin. There are plenty of people who simply fall into that personality type. Asexual is not an accurate description by the way, that would be someone lacking in physical secondary sex characteristics. My guess is there is whole army of people out their puzzled and bored by the overemphasis on sex in the pop culture which is promoted by those with the opposite personality type, hyper-sexed.

Thanks I agree that “asexual” sounds misleading, but that’s what they call themselves, and I was unsure how else to put it.

 

[puzzleannie]

Thanks I agree that “asexual” sounds misleading, but that’s what they call themselves, and I was unsure how else to put it.

well I don’t have conversations with people which include invitations to self-describe sexual orientation, so I wouldn’t know.

 

[nichjake]

I’m kind of “asexual” as well except I definatly lean towards the opposite sex. I just don’t have an interest in sex. I like being close to guys…cuddling is great, but beyond that I’m just not interested.

I might be off the mark but based on how I’ve interpreted what I’ve learned here I wouldn’t think the church would have a problem with people who aren’t interested in sex simply because it doesn’t bring about an occassion to sin…whether that sin be hetero or homosexual in nature. I’m my odd reasoning it would seem like the church would welcome this disinterest in sex in young people…it would certaintly keep kids out of that kind of trouble

 

[NoxSineStellae]

I’m kind of “asexual” as well except I definatly lean towards the opposite sex. I just don’t have an interest in sex. I like being close to guys…cuddling is great, but beyond that I’m just not interested.

I might be off the mark but based on how I’ve interpreted what I’ve learned here I wouldn’t think the church would have a problem with people who aren’t interested in sex simply because it doesn’t bring about an occassion to sin…whether that sin be hetero or homosexual in nature. I’m my odd reasoning it would seem like the church would welcome this disinterest in sex in young people…it would certaintly keep kids out of that kind of trouble

That’s what I was thinking, but then I wondered if it conflicted with “Go forth and multiply”. And I’ve heard it said that chastity and even virginity is only an exemplary virtue if its a struggle/sacrifice/cross to bear (not that it’s not great if someone who doesn’t have a chance to have sex or the desire to have sex remains a virgin, but that it’s “more pleasing” to God if they say no to an opportunity they really want). So I didn’t know how that would factor into being the best Catholic you can be - if they should force and interest and marry and procreate or something.

 

[goofyjim]

the Church does not have any official position on anyone’s personality unless it is affected by a grave disorder which presents a strong temptation to sin. There are plenty of people who simply fall into that personality type. Asexual is not an accurate description by the way, that would be someone lacking in physical secondary sex characteristics. My guess is there is whole army of people out their puzzled and bored by the overemphasis on sex in the pop culture which is promoted by those with the opposite personality type, hyper-sexed.

Well I am not about to define myself as asexual. I have defined myself as homosexual but remain chaste. It is possible and should not be condemned so much as the Church constantly does.

 

[BriannaB]

You can still be attracted to people, find them visually pleasing, have crushes, fall in love, and have relationships, and remain asexual. There are not a lot of concrete boundaries, but if you don’t experience sexual attraction to people then you may feel comfortable with considering yourself asexual. But it is not like celibacy or abstinence where it is a choice; it is simply the lack of sexual attraction. They can, and often do, get married and have or adopt children.

 

[Jerome28712]

Isn’t “asexual” without a sex ie: male/female ? Just wondering. and how can “a person” be without a sex and still be a person ?

To be a person one must have a sex. Even if you chose not to engage in a sexual relationship, to be, you have to be one or the other. you are not a starfish or such.

 

[Dale_M]

Isn’t “asexual” without a sex ie: male/female ? Just wondering. and how can “a person” be without a sex and still be a person ?

That is one definition. However, in recent years persons who have such a low libido that they claim to feel no sexual desires or attractions have termed themselves to be asexual. The word is meant to be a contrast to heterosexual or homosexual.

If anyone wants to learn more, here is a website devoted to the subject.
asexuality.org/home/overview.html

Edit:

oops… until today, this thread had been dead for five years.

 

[FSGRY]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

That’s what I was thinking, but then I wondered if it conflicted with “Go forth and multiply”. And I’ve heard it said that chastity and even virginity is only an exemplary virtue if its a struggle/sacrifice/cross to bear (not that it’s not great if someone who doesn’t have a chance to have sex or the desire to have sex remains a virgin, but that it’s “more pleasing” to God if they say no to an opportunity they really want). So I didn’t know how that would factor into being the best Catholic you can be - if they should force and interest and marry and procreate or something.

If anything, being asexual would help one with a vocation to the priesthood or the religious life, since it would eliminate the temptation to break one’s vows of chastity.

Doesn’t Christ talk about people who were born eunuchs? Maybe this is the sort of thing He was referring to.

 

[bri89]

Never knew if I was asexual or bisexual. My attractions are sensual rather than sexual if that makes sense.

 

[SamTheNewNewfie]

Never knew if I was asexual or bisexual. My attractions are sensual rather than sexual if that makes sense.

I think I can relate, except I’ve only ever experienced attraction to the opposite sex. I find the sight of a random man in a speedo repulsive. However, I have experienced physical attraction to men I either find exceptionally good looking or connect with on an intellectual level. Of course, this is like .1% of the male population.

 

[Beautiful_Rose]

There’s nothing being wrong with being asexual. Power to your friend, your friend can have a relationship without having to worry about temptations.

 

[GearXL]

It’s one thing to not feel like having sex. It’s another thing to want to have sinful sex.

 

[kdbueno]

The divine unity in moral thinking is a supposition that eternal law is infallibly correct.

 

[Sarcelle]

Does the RCC have a stance on people who describe themselves as Asexual - no sexual attraction to anyone? I’ve known several such people (one of my very best friends first dated boys, then girls, before she realized she didn’t actually like either in that sense, though she’s a wonderful social person) and wonder if it’s also considered “disordered”.

I’m not talking about a choice to be chaste/celibate. Some of the asexuals I’ve been friends with are completely chaste, not out of choice, but because it’s the way they are. It’s not a sacrifice in any way. They also don’t seem to be “lacking” in any way, or have medical problems or a history of abuse - they’re simply not interested in any sort of sexual/romantic activity whatsoever, in the same way that other people have not the slightest inclination to participate in sports.

So if God is calling us all to be hetero, are people who aren’t, even if they aren’t homosexual, viewed as disordered by the church?

I do have an attraction to the opposite sex. I just do not “burn”. Know what I mean? I presently do not have a romantic attachment nor do I yearn for one. What is exactly wrong with that?

I have no problems living chastely. I have never struggled with sins against purity.

To me, this lack of struggle is a gift of God and not a disorder on my part.

 

[Rau]

That’s what I was thinking, but then I wondered if it conflicted with “Go forth and multiply”…

A lack of desire for sexual congress is not a chosen course of action, so it cannot (in a culpable way) conflict with that exhortation. Further, that exhortation is not an instruction for each to take personally, given it takes 2 to tango, and it is not possible for everyone.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I do have an attraction to the opposite sex. I just do not “burn”. Know what I mean? I presently do not have a romantic attachment nor do I yearn for one. What is exactly wrong with that?

I have no problems living chastely. I have never struggled with sins against purity.

To me, this lack of struggle is a gift of God and not a disorder on my part.

Although some Bible scholars may disagree, I think that when Jesus spoke of “those who are born eunuchs”, he wasn’t referring to just the very rare people born with some kind of congenital anomaly of the genitals, but also to many who would likely identify as “asexual” these days. After all, he goes on to say “some are made eunuchs by men, and some become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven”. Since He certainly wasn’t mandating that priests literally castrate themselves, so it stands to reason that he did not mean, when he spoke of “those who are born eunuchs” only to mean those born without sexual organs.

On the other hand, while true “asexuals” certainly do exist, I wonder if some who identify as “asexual” do so because in some circles, that is unfortunately the only socially acceptable reason NOT to be pursuing sex with everything that moves. Some people really do assume that if you’re not actively trying to satisfy every sexual urge you have, that is “unhealthy” or “denying your true self”, and the only bright line is “of course, don’t actually rape anyone in pursuit of your sexual fulfillment”.

I certainly think that most “demisexuals” who claim they are only sexually attracted to people they have an emotional connection to, actually have an innate “natural law” aversion to casual sex but can’t bring themselves to say that for fear they will be shamed as “sex-averse”.

Unfortunately, some people in “secular” society really do seem to essentially worship Sex as a God, and see the “sex-averse” as heretics to be shamed, and the only defense is “I was made this way by God or Nature, to be averse to some forms of sexual expression”. Indeed, some of the “prude shaming” is just as harsh as the “slut shaming” I see from some who believe in traditional moral values.

ETA: Actually, considering how even most who claim that unlimited sexual expression is healthy only can bring themselves to have casual sex with strangers by first consuming large amounts of alcohol, the Sex Worshippers actually remind me somewhat of some religions that use hallucinogens in their rituals. Not to mention some historical pagan rituals that included sex, such as the “temple prostitutes” in some Roman cults such as the one based at the Temple of Artemis (though I always found this odd because Artemis is usually depicted as a virgin goddess). This is the background of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians.

Hmm, I guess nothing is new under the sun, after all.