do asexuals have any representation in medical school ?

[Keladry]

Just want to mention that asexuals can still have romantic orientations, including biromantic or homoromantic, and face similar discrimination to bisexual and homosexual people.

Edit: and also may wish to marry partners of the same gender.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

This Adcom member could care less about OP's sexual orientation or lack of it. I don't think it brings anything to the table, unlike, say, SDNer Aero, who, as a transgendered person. can be legally discriminated against. I can't see OP being denied employment or marriage rights, such as exists now for gays have to face (and I'm suing that term inclusively), because of a lack of sexual orientation.

I want to know if OP will be a good doctor.

Thank you for your input. Are you saying gays can't be legally discriminated against in your state? Because gays are not a federally protected class.

 

[hubriz]

Imagine being in a world that expects you to be attracted to SOMETHING when you really aren't, whether it's the opposite sex or not. They are still marginalized and alienated in this case.

0

 

[lobo.solo]

If no sex, what else there is in life?

 

[F1rstGen]

OP joined today and has 3 posts.

I'm disappointed so many people failed to recognize this as a troll attempt.

I assume the original post was a stab at the multiple LGBT representation threads that have surfaced lately. If the OP also intended to prove that many of the people posting are overly sensitive, I'd say that goal was well achieved. Carry on.

 

[familyaerospace]

does anyone know ?

Agree with the save it for a secondary essay if you can tie it into medicine.

Personally though, I do know several asexuals in medical school but since they are for the most part not sexual relationship-ly oriented (hence the asexual part!), people just default them to being straight and/or religious.

I'm not sure how much it will or will not help as there is no (to my knowledge) systematic discrimination against asexuals in medicine. There is definitely with the lesbian, gay, and huge with the trans community... intersexed as well.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

OP joined today and has 3 posts.

I'm disappointed so many people failed to recognize this as a troll attempt.

I assume the original post was a stab at the multiple LGBT representation threads that have surfaced lately. If the OP also intended to prove that many of the people posting are overly sensitive, I'd say that goal was well achieved. Carry on.

Thank you for stepping down from your horse to pass judgement, oh wise one.

It doesn't mean this thread wasn't helpful and informative to others who did not want to ask for themselves.

 

[F1rstGen]

Serious question then....

I already know the fallout from this supposition will be epic but would asexuality be considered a disorder or disease rather than a difference in sexual orientation or idea of "self" that the LGBT groups advocate for?

Sexual preference varies between individuals immensely but the commonality is that the desire for sex (and the physiological changes associated) is still the motivator or reward for a given behavior or desire. Having absolutely no desire for sex seems to stand in direct opposition of nature and every evolutionary theory up to this point that otherwise would seem universal. A quick google search uncovered Anhedonia and Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder as possible clinical diagnoses. I think comparing or categorizing asexual individuals with those that identify as LGBT is somewhat flawed.

Sex is a very primitive reward pathway. The suggestion that some people just don't have a desire to have sex seems equivalent to suggesting that some people just don't like to eat when they feel hungry...or that they don't get hungry at all. I think we all agree the latter is cause for medical evaluation so it seems reasonable that the former would be a similar case. It seems like medical issues to me but then again, many people also once (some probably still do) considerer being gay as a medical issue so I could be very much off base. As one poster mentioned, it's surprising to me this topic is even something an adcom would be concerned about unless it was a motivating factor for pursuing medicine.

 

[AspiringERMD]

Serious question then....

I already know the fallout from this supposition will be epic but would asexuality be considered a disorder or disease rather than a difference in sexual orientation or idea of "self" that the LGBT groups advocate for?

Sexual preference varies between individuals immensely but the commonality is that the desire for sex (and the physiological changes associated) is still the motivator or reward for a given behavior or desire. Having absolutely no desire for sex seems to stand in direct opposition of nature and every evolutionary theory up to this point that otherwise would seem universal. A quick google search uncovered Anhedonia and Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder as possible clinical diagnoses. I think comparing or categorizing asexual individuals with those that identify as LGBT is somewhat flawed.

Sex is a very primitive reward pathway. The suggestion that some people just don't have a desire to have sex seems equivalent to suggesting that some people just don't like to eat when they feel hungry...or that they don't get hungry at all. I think we all agree the latter is cause for medical evaluation so it seems reasonable that the former would be a similar case. It seems like medical issues to me but then again, many people also once (some probably still do) considerer being gay as a medical issue so I could be very much off base. As one poster mentioned, it's surprising to me this topic is even something an adcom would be concerned about unless it was a motivating factor for pursuing medicine.

Conditions generally become disorders if they interfere with and disturb a person's life. If asexuals are happy and proud, then I don't think it's fair, necessary, or warranted to call it a disorder.

You could make the same evolutionary argument about gay people, by the way, so I personally don't find that assertion convincing.

 

[F1rstGen]

Conditions generally become disorders if they interfere with and disturb a person's life. If asexuals are happy and proud, then I don't think it's fair, necessary, or warranted to call it a disorder.

You could make the same evolutionary argument about gay people, by the way, so I personally don't find that assertion convincing.

Like heterosexual individuals, gay people still see sex as a motivator or reward for their actions. That was the critical part of my assertion.

 

[familyaerospace]

Serious question then....

I already know the fallout from this supposition will be epic but would asexuality be considered a disorder or disease rather than a difference in sexual orientation or idea of "self" that the LGBT groups advocate for?

Many people outside the asexual community consider it the exact same as "hypoactive sexual desire disorder." Asexuals state it is not the same thing.

Personally, I have no idea if it is or is not the same as I don't honestly have experience dealing with asexuality except for as it pertains to my T levels (only trans person in history where T killed my libido).

Most asexuals I know at one point or another were in sexual relationships.

I do like the idea of it only being a disorder if someone is stressed out by it. I know people who are happy being asexual others who are not.

 

[F1rstGen]

Many people outside the asexual community consider it the exact same as "hypoactive sexual desire disorder." Asexuals state it is not the same thing.

Personally, I have no idea if it is or is not the same as I don't honestly have experience dealing with asexuality except for as it pertains to my T levels (only trans person in history where T killed my libido).

Most asexuals I know at one point or another were in sexual relationships.

I do like the idea of it only being a disorder if someone is stressed out by it. I know people who are happy being asexual others who are not.

That's a great example of why I'm questioning the inclusion of asexuality into LGBT or the use of the expanded acronym to refer to asexuals. There is a real possibility that many asexual individuals have undiagnosed physiological abnormalities that are the underlying cause of their lack of normal sexual desires. As far as I am aware, the majority of LGBT individuals have no obvious physiological differences compared to a person that identifies as heterosexual and thus, the comparison to asexuality is flawed.

 

[Aerus]

Like heterosexual individuals, gay people still see sex as a motivator or reward for their actions. That was the critical part of my assertion.

Nobody is saying that people who identify as asexual don't feel reward when they have sex. They just don't feel a sexual/romantic attraction.

 

[Goro]

There are states that are wiser than the Federal gov't...are, at least, move faster. That's all I'll say.

Thank you for your input. Are you saying gays can't be legally discriminated against in your state? Because gays are not a federally protected class.

 

[F1rstGen]

Nobody is saying that people who identify as asexual don't feel reward when they have sex. They just don't feel a sexual/romantic attraction.

But I thought we already established that asexual people CAN have romantic relationships?

And I'm saying "reward" in the context of the endorphin release and brain chemistry associated with, and leading up to, the act of sex.

I have to bow out of this thread though. I don't have access to the proper microscope to start splitting hairs.

 

[Aerus]

But I thought we already established that asexual people CAN have romantic relationships?

And I'm saying "reward" in the context of the endorphin release and brain chemistry associated with, and leading up to, the act of sex.

I have to bow out of this thread though. I don't have access to the proper microscope to start splitting hairs.

There is nothing that will prevent a person from having a romantic relationship if they go for it. It's whether they FEEL attraction or not.

 

[Teleologist]

Those are called 4.0/45 MCATers.

You mean there aren't any asexuals in med school?

 

[deleted407021]

As far as I am aware, the majority of LGBT individuals have no obvious physiological differences compared to a person that identifies as heterosexual and thus, the comparison to asexuality is flawed.

From a Washington Post article:

--Gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size, the researchers found. Gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

Next, the researchers used positron emission tomography (PET) scans to examine how a part of the brain involved in processing emotions -- the amygdala -- was connected to other brain regions. Again they found that gay men tended to be more like straight women, with a stronger link between the amygdala and regions involved in emotions. Gay women tended to be more like straight men, with stronger connections to motor functions.--

There's lots of information out there about this. Additionally, there are many theories regarding the evolutionary basis for homosexuality. Some say it relieves pressure on the gene pool; more mates to go around. This theory is supported by the presence of various orientations in hundreds of animal species. Others believe that homosexuals fit a niche in that they provide extra support to the family unit. The genes may have been perpetuated due to the historic improvement of reproductive capacities of the mothers, sisters and paternal aunts of these homosexuals, called "kin selection". There are more still. Many of these biological bases may play a role in asexuality as well as bisexuality, transsexuality, and any number of "alternate" sexual orientations or conditions including those still labelled as paraphilias.

 

[edgerock24]

do people who are sexually attracted to robots have any representation in medical school?


Jesus. Some of you people need to lighten up.

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

I have nothing unique to really add to this thread as most of my opinions have already been covered (acceptance for all, diversity of all kinds is important and necessary, yada yada)...

but I did want to say that the way this thread was handled by everyone involved was pretty refreshing. an adult conversation took place for the sole purpose of educating others, and even the misunderstandings were handled with respect and were moved on from promptly.

that's exactly how this forum should be more often, and it'd be an honor to be a future colleague to any of you, regardless of your sexual orientations. kudos to all. now back to your regularly scheduled programming. *end rant*

 

[DokterMom]

Honestly, I'd expect there's some degree of risk -- That declaring oneself to be asexual could be interpreted as someone's being incapable of emotional intimacy and/or having trouble connecting with others. Some suspicion of the '4.0/45 automaton' theory.

Not the most enlightened view, but society is still working on that...

 

[kyamh]

Has anyone watched the a sexuality documentary on Netflix? Is it any good?

 

[familyaerospace]

but I did want to say that the way this thread was handled by everyone involved was pretty refreshing. an adult conversation took place for the sole purpose of educating others, and even the misunderstandings were handled with respect and were moved on from promptly.

What's bad is since this is SDN, this will never happen happen this way again. ;-)

 

[deleted407021]

Has anyone watched the a sexuality documentary on Netflix? Is it any good?

No but I'll check it out. There's one about pedophilia that was interesting.

What's it called?

 

[kyamh]

No but I'll check it out. There's one about pedophilia that was interesting.

What's it called?

(A)Sexual - I'm into documentaries and it's been popping up in recommended

 

[deleted407021]

(A)Sexual - I'm into documentaries and it's been popping up in recommended

Same. Thanks!

 

[V5RED]

From a Washington Post article:

--Gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size, the researchers found. Gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

Next, the researchers used positron emission tomography (PET) scans to examine how a part of the brain involved in processing emotions -- the amygdala -- was connected to other brain regions. Again they found that gay men tended to be more like straight women, with a stronger link between the amygdala and regions involved in emotions. Gay women tended to be more like straight men, with stronger connections to motor functions.--

There's lots of information out there about this. Additionally, there are many theories regarding the evolutionary basis for homosexuality. Some say it relieves pressure on the gene pool; more mates to go around. This theory is supported by the presence of various orientations in hundreds of animal species. Others believe that homosexuals fit a niche in that they provide extra support to the family unit. The genes may have been perpetuated due to the historic improvement of reproductive capacities of the mothers, sisters and paternal aunts of these homosexuals, called "kin selection". There are more still. Many of these biological bases may play a role in asexuality as well as bisexuality, transsexuality, and any number of "alternate" sexual orientations or conditions including those still labelled as paraphilias.

I wonder how the bolded would work. Homosexual individuals won't be passing on their genes. I can understand kin selection working for traits like altruism where the individuals might die, but all members would have the altruistic traits so as a whole altruistic populations would have higher fitness. The difference with homosexuality is if everyone is naturally homosexual, no genes pass on at all and if only some are homosexual, those with the homosexual nature will not pass on their genes, so even if there is an advantage, it won't be passed on.

Maybe it is some combination of recessive alleles that occasionally produces homosexual individuals or maybe it has to do with the idea that we all (except for asexuals and those who are attracted to non humans) fall somewhere on an axis between 100% homosexual and 100% heterosexual and having this variance could occasionally lead to homosexual individuals which would allow for such a benefit as you describe, but I don't know how likely that would be.

 

[el_duderino]

Homosexual individuals won't be passing on their genes.

This isn't at all true. Many homosexuals have had kids and gotten married and all that jazz, and modern technology allows insemination, surrogacy, etc.

 

[V5RED]

This isn't at all true. Many homosexuals have had kids and gotten married and all that jazz, and modern technology allows insemination, surrogacy, etc.

That doesn't apply to the post I was asking about. That post was referring to nonhumans and ancient humans who would supposedly benefit from homosexuals because they would not be reproducing.

 

[el_duderino]

That doesn't apply to the post I was asking about. That post was referring to nonhumans and ancient humans who would supposedly benefit from homosexuals because they would not be reproducing.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that homosexuals in the past didn't breed, regardless of species.

 

[V5RED]

I'm not sure it's fair to say that homosexuals in the past didn't breed, regardless of species.

The post I responded to contained the hypothesis that their not reproducing was why they would be of benefit to a species since they could then be a support member to a family unit.

It is perfectly fair to say that homosexuals in the past would be unlikely to reproduce. At the very least, it would be at a much lower rate than heterosexuals since there is no drive for heterosexual sex, and that would suggest that homosexuality would not be prevalent unless it is due to genes carried by heterosexuals.

 

[deleted407021]

I wonder how the bolded would work. Homosexual individuals won't be passing on their genes. I can understand kin selection working for traits like altruism where the individuals might die, but all members would have the altruistic traits so as a whole altruistic populations would have higher fitness. The difference with homosexuality is if everyone is naturally homosexual, no genes pass on at all and if only some are homosexual, those with the homosexual nature will not pass on their genes, so even if there is an advantage, it won't be passed on.

Maybe it is some combination of recessive alleles that occasionally produces homosexual individuals or maybe it has to do with the idea that we all (except for asexuals and those who are attracted to non humans) fall somewhere on an axis between 100% homosexual and 100% heterosexual and having this variance could occasionally lead to homosexual individuals which would allow for such a benefit as you describe, but I don't know how likely that would be.

Many homosexuals have children from heterosexual partnerships. They either didn't or don't behave as homosexuals.

It is thought that the genes for homosexuality and other such variances may not be perpetuated by the individual homosexual, but instead by the mothers and maternal aunts of the individual due to their improved reproductive success. Other factors, such as intrauterine hormone levels are also considers important. From my human genetics course, I seem to remember that orientation is approximately 80% genetic with multiple genes playing a role.

It is often thought orientation is on a continuum.

 

[familyaerospace]

It is thought that the genes for homosexuality and other such variances may not be perpetuated by the individual homosexual, but instead by the mothers and maternal aunts of the individual due to their improved reproductive success.

That's what I've been hearing for the past decade or more.

 

[Teleologist]

<----------I'm a sexual creature. Does that count?

 

[NontradCA]

does anyone know ?

I'm asexual. But not by choice. :*(

 

[IL Pre Med]

Asexual.. Like a plant?

What does that mean? Did you jerk off to your stove?

 

[xffan624]

Asexual.. Like a plant?

What does that mean? Did you jerk off to your stove?

Before you make ignorant jokes, why don't try using the wikipedia?

 

[mehc012]

Imagine being in a world that expects you to be attracted to SOMETHING when you really aren't, whether it's the opposite sex or not. They are still marginalized and alienated in this case.

As someone who is not attracted to anything and has no interest in hooking up (don't identify as asexual, I'm just uninterested to the point of not knowing whether I'd be into dudes or chicks if I were interested)...no, not really. Nobody cares. Guys still hit on you when you wish they wouldn't, but that's just a part of being a girl...I don't know a single female friend of any orientation or relationship status who doesn't deal with that. Otherwise...yeah, no one really notices someone's lack of activity. People just aren't that observant.

 

[Aerus]

As someone who is not attracted to anything and has no interest in hooking up (don't identify as asexual, I'm just uninterested to the point of not knowing whether I'd be into dudes or chicks if I were interested)...no, not really. Nobody cares. Guys still hit on you when you wish they wouldn't, but that's just a part of being a girl...I don't know a single female friend of any orientation or relationship status who doesn't deal with that. Otherwise...yeah, no one really notices someone's lack of activity. People just aren't that observant.

Yes I agree, but I'm specifically referring to those who identify as asexual. Being apathetic towards a certain issue certainly would exclude people from feeling this way, but we still live in a society where relationships are still the norm and it can be very frustrating for individuals who identify as asexual but still are expected to "settle down" because of a lack of understanding of asexual identification. LGBTQIA serves as a support group.

 

[mehc012]

Yes I agree, but I'm specifically referring to those who identify as asexual. Being apathetic towards a certain issue certainly would exclude people from feeling this way, but we still live in a society where relationships are still the norm and it can be very frustrating for individuals who identify as asexual but still are expected to "settle down" because of a lack of understanding of asexual identification. LGBTQIA serves as a support group.

So the issue arises, not because of their identity, but because they put a label on it?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand this one. I don't identify as asexual not because I don't feel similarly, but instead because I think the entire discrimination argument on this one is BS and I refuse to be associated with it.

 

[Dcr108]

I'd say this thread is an indicator of how much your experience could benefit the awareness of others, as many people here seem clueless about asexuality. Your experience is unique and offers you a great opportunity to discuss what you can contribute from it.

 

[bunnity]

Has anyone watched the a sexuality documentary on Netflix? Is it any good?

Yeah, it's pretty good and I think it would answer a lot of the questions that came up in this thread. Also asexuality.org is kind of the "official" web site.

 

[Aerus]

So the issue arises, not because of their identity, but because they put a label on it?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand this one. I don't identify as asexual not because I don't feel similarly, but instead because I think the entire discrimination argument on this one is BS and I refuse to be associated with it.

You don't have to be associated with it. It's just for people who do feel alienation.

 

[mehc012]

You don't have to be associated with it. It's just for people who do feel alienation.

Everyone feels alienation...part of being human.

 

[deleted407021]

Everyone feels alienation...part of being human.

Strikingly deep. Kudos.

Asexual.. Like a plant?

What does that mean? Did you jerk off to your stove?

Go read a book.

 

[PreciousHamburgers]

That's what I've been hearing for the past decade or more.

From what I understand about evolution, I do not buy into the kin selection theory. Kin selection is a very week force and would not trump the "selfish" traits of something as fundamental as sexual reproduction. I think homosexuality makes sense in that it is a HUMAN LABEL. We are forcing a complex concept into a binary. And like most human labels, such as race, they have very little basis in the science of biology. I am sure homosexuality, as it exists throughout the animal kingdom, is just a place on the spectrum of sexuality. As social animals, sex is not simply an act of reproduction. Like bonobos, we have sex for social reasons as well.

Something as biologically complex as sexual identity is most likely influenced by many genes, as well as environmental factors (in utero hormones, for example) on how those genes are expressed.

It is largely our cultural identity and social norms that force people to label themselves as having a particular orientation. If these constraints were not there, I am sure instinctively people would be more sexually promiscuous, like other primates are. I identify as a gay man in that I have never fallen in love with a woman. However, in college I certainly hooked up with women because it was socially acceptable and why the hell not? I can assure you I am more than capable of producing offspring either intentionally or accidentally.

 

[magicaldinosaur]

WHY the heck was OP blocked? Some people who commented deserve it much more than a legitimate troll thread.

 

[LMBLBM]

Wait.... I am so confused. If there is no behavioral difference between asexual and celibacy, and asexual people are not subject to sodomy laws, how asexual people are discriminated?

 

[el_duderino]

Wait.... I am so confused. If there is no behavioral difference between asexual and celibacy, and asexual people are not subject to sodomy laws, how asexual people are discriminated?

Could you not just Google this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Discrimination_and_legal_protections
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/asexual-discrimination_n_3380551.html
http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/72206-asexual-discrimination/
http://www.examiner.com/article/ase...nation-because-of-their-perceived-orientation

 

[LMBLBM]

Did you read them before you copy-paste all those links?

1. There are conflicting studies regarding asexuality discrimination. Also, I am not sure I can trust this journal.
2. I see this as a simple disgusting rape case

Could you not just Google this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Discrimination_and_legal_protections
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/asexual-discrimination_n_3380551.html
http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/72206-asexual-discrimination/
http://www.examiner.com/article/ase...nation-because-of-their-perceived-orientation

. And, of course from LGBT perspective, asexuality does not matter, and its a distraction for LGBT to achieve its goal
3. I don't see this forum very convincing.
4. 'Basically, if an asexual does face discrimination because of his or her orientation, it is most often because there is a false assumption that an asexual is a gay or lesbian' <-- This is the only valid (weak) argument I can see how they are discriminated. They are discriminated because of their homosexual appearances. If an asexual male have romantic relationship with an asexual female, they wont be discriminated.