note to self

If you ever find yourself with time to spare while waiting on someone, and if you discover a human sexuality textbook nearby, and if, after finding that asexuality is not in the index, you check to see if HSDD is listed there, and you find that it is, then don’t bother flipping to that section to look.  It isn’t worth it.


5 responses to “note to self

  • Anonymous

    Makes you wonder what other things are considered both innately damaging and fixable, purely because they’re different to the norm.

  • Sara K.

    I remember one time I was looking through a university bookstore and I somehow ended up in the sexuality studies section. Out of curiosity, I checked a human sexuality 101 textbook, and lo and behold, they had about two paragraphs about asexuality-as-sexual-orientation. It was super basic stuff without much detail, but it clearly did much better than the one you picked up.

  • madcap86

    I find it interesting that HSDD is defined as only being a disorder if it “causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulties.” To me, this means that this disorder is likely valid outside of the asexual spectrum–there are certainly scenarios where this could be valid without the individual being asexual.

    One subtype of this disorder that bothers me a bit is “situational” defined as someone having sexual desire, but not for their current partner. This feels a lot like if you’re not sexually attracted to the person you love (or want to have sex with them, possibly on their schedule) that there’s something wrong with you. That may be taking it to an extreme, but it feels like something that could easily be exploited (particularly against women) as a disorder when it is something much simpler. Particularly, it fails to take into consideration a difference between romantic love/desire and sexual love/desire.

    I do like that, on the HSDD wiki page, there is a paragraph that shows that it has come into debate, primarily by asexual activists. At least the issue is being raised, and just as homosexuality was removed from the DSM, this will soon be removed as well (or at least better defined so as to exclude the asexual premise).

    • Spade

      Wow, yeah. Absolutely. I know the current edition does have an asexual exemption, or at least plays lipservice to the idea, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.

WP account not required to comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: