|
|
Post by michaelsmoker on Dec 12, 2010 5:53:02 GMT -5
The one recent research study I saw on aces (and I can post the link if people want) didn't really examine the prevalence of formally diagnosed mental illness among us, beyond some metricked questionnaires on schizotypal personality disorder and the such. But I'd make a wild guess that mental illness is no more prevalent among aces than among sexuals, simply because we seem to blend into the general population in so many other ways.
I was wondering, however, whether anyone wants to discuss the experience of being both ace and formally diagnosed. (My dx is schizophrenia.)
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by plywood on Dec 12, 2010 19:38:06 GMT -5
As you know Michael (but others dont) I have paranid schizophrenia and major depression. I think some diagnosed people mistake having no/low libido from medications to being asexual. I know I am asexual regardless of my meds because I felt this way before I got ill.
|
|
|
|
Post by you*hear*but*do*you*listen on Dec 12, 2010 22:19:48 GMT -5
Major depression, possible brain trauma due to Accutane.
|
|
|
|
Post by murray on Dec 13, 2010 2:21:30 GMT -5
Major depression and a touch of OCD here, and while it may have some effect on my romantic tendencies, it is nonetheless completely unrelated to my lack of sexual attraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelsmoker on Dec 13, 2010 11:47:20 GMT -5
Major depression, possible brain trauma due to Accutane. Has there been a class action lawsuit about that yet, the way there have been for zyprexa and seroquel re. diabetes? Michael |
|
|
|
Post by ocelotofdoom on Dec 13, 2010 23:50:59 GMT -5
Technically it's a developmental disability as opposed to a psychiatric one, but I'm diagnosed with Asperger's. It's also possible that I have PTSD, which I have been diagnosed with, though it could also be at a subclinical level. I don't think that these have anything to do with my being asexual, as I don't see how either diagnosis would connect to the fact that I am likely to find the knit pattern of a person's sweater or the book they are reading infinitely more interesting than how they look (I lack aesthetic attraction as well as sexual attraction). However, either or both of them could have some bearing on my being repulsed. I'd have a lot more problems if I wasn't asexual, I imagine - as things are, I have nothing that would make it necessary for me to "overcome" being repulsed or whatever some people would expect me to do about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelsmoker on Dec 14, 2010 3:35:19 GMT -5
Ocelot, I get the impression that you've been hassled a bit about the way you are, and that people have suggested a link between being ace and having Asperger's and/or PTSD. Those two things are not necessarily connected--I mean the hassle and the inquiries about the link. In my experience it's more likely that well-meaning people who want to help will ask about a potential link, while those who hassle you just expect a person to behave a certain way and get offended when s/he doesn't.
I had an interesting, vaguely relevant experience just yesterday. Someone asked me what I was angry about. That surprised me because I wasn't angry at all. Then I realized that I must have been grinding my teeth. I grind my teeth as just an unconscious habit that several dentists have pointed out. No idea what causes it, but I routinely get asked about anger when there isn't any, and it's a bit irritating.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by you*hear*but*do*you*listen on Dec 14, 2010 21:51:23 GMT -5
Major depression, possible brain trauma due to Accutane. Has there been a class action lawsuit about that yet, the way there have been for zyprexa and seroquel re. diabetes? Michael There have been a fuckton of class action lawsuits against Accutane. They have dealt with mostly cases of suicide and people with autoimmune diseases that were caused by Accutane, though; I don't think any of the lawsuits have dealt with brain trauma. |
|
|
|
Post by sciatrix on Dec 15, 2010 7:54:04 GMT -5
Ocelot, I get the impression that you've been hassled a bit about the way you are, and that people have suggested a link between being ace and having Asperger's and/or PTSD. Those two things are not necessarily connected--I mean the hassle and the inquiries about the link. In my experience it's more likely that well-meaning people who want to help will ask about a potential link, while those who hassle you just expect a person to behave a certain way and get offended when s/he doesn't. Speaking for myself, my experience is completely different. I have in fact seen people respond looking for a connection who are clearly trying to discredit asexuality by tying it to autism. And the tradition of trying to erase the sexualities of disabled people more generally by ascribing a bastardized version of asexuality to them is a long and storied one. Yes, I've seen well-meaning people ask this question, but I have also seen people who clearly are looking for a box to shove asexuals in so that they don't have to consider us a valid orientation do it. I also think that being well-meaning doesn't actually mean that someone can't reinforce oppressive narratives or questions which have seriously offensive implications. Intent is not the same thing as action. And I certainly don't think that being well-meaning creates a free pass to reinforce such narratives without being called on it. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelsmoker on Dec 15, 2010 8:16:47 GMT -5
"Called on it" has at least two meanings: gently try to educate the well-meaning but uninformed, or explode with rage at them and alienate them and reinforce their stereotypes. In general I don't believe in being aggressive with those who don't have bad intentions. No, intentions aren't everything, but to me they matter. And I'm allergic to all types of "activism-ism," including berating members of the majority population for the sake of gaining advantage over them. But we've had this dispute before, elsewhere, so maybe we can just agree to disagree here for the sake of what is a good forum.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by sciatrix on Dec 15, 2010 9:17:02 GMT -5
I'm not so convinced we have, except that I'm violently allergic to being told what I should and shouldn't consider offensive as well as to being told what my experiences are. Which is essentially what you were telling me in my blog.
My levels of aggression in response to people who step in it are definitely influenced by the way they step in it. I think most people's generally are, and they're further influenced by the way the person stepping in it reacts to being corrected. It also depends what exactly they say--someone saying something rather problematic is going to be treated more gently than someone who is spewing bigotry in all directions.
However, if someone with good intentions reacts to being corrected by flailing backwards and insisting that they couldn't be doing anything wrong, they're just CURIOUS, and OMG FREE SPEECH? There I have a problem, and I am generally likely to get a hell of a lot more irritated. As I said, I am concerned with deeds, not intentions, and someone who thinks they're being a total ally while obviously not being so needs to be corrected. For many of these people, I have observed that corrections without the benefit of anger do not sink in, and that being nice and polite and kind often fails to make them sit up and take notice.
I also don't think that that anger is "activism-ism." I'm very, very suspicious of claims that a minority is trying to oppress a majority by being angry at them. It's a claim I've seen used in many axes in an attempt to silence various minorities often enough to allow the majority to go on being comfortable and not have to deal with issues. The claim that activists can use anger to gain advantage over majority people also strikes me as ingenuous. What kinds of institutional power do you imagine that such minority activists have over people of the majority, exactly? You have never elaborated on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelsmoker on Dec 15, 2010 15:17:21 GMT -5
How about we agree to disagree before we stink up a promising new site by arguing? On AVEN there are endless politically motivated quarrels, and I hoped to avoid them here. Or, if you prefer, I can just unregister and go somewhere else. Your choice.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by you*hear*but*do*you*listen on Dec 15, 2010 21:58:11 GMT -5
How about we agree to disagree before we stink up a promising new site by arguing? On AVEN there are endless politically motivated quarrels, and I hoped to avoid them here. Or, if you prefer, I can just unregister and go somewhere else. Your choice. Michael -puts on modly hat- As long as neither of you starts personally insulting the other or telling the other that their approach to visibility is epic-failing and hurting the community/they shouldn't be doing visibility, this discussion falls within the parameters laid out by the TOS. While Michael is right that we don't want the endless quarrels of AVEN, there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate. But let's keep it healthy; let's keep our intentions clear and try not to be passive-aggressive. The "I can just unregister" remark recalls AVEN's infamous FrozenCherry; let's please not go down that road. Michael, you're better than that. -removes hat- My two cents: people who are well-meaning but misinformed--particularly those who try to connect aceness to mental illness--can be worse than those who are simply being douchebags. Sometimes these people well-meaning people are too self-righteous and convinced that they're right JUST because they're well-meaning for their minds to be changed without a little force. And as long as we're talking about what "anger" does, can we make it clear what "anger" actually is? When I get "angry" at a well-meaning but misinformed person, it usually consists of my voice and facial expression getting harsher. This does not mean I "explode with rage" or make blanket prejudicial statements about all non-asexuals. Furthermore, as long as we acknowledge that different types of asexuality-doubters need to be dealt with in different ways as opposed to acting like there is something inherently/morally wrong with all asexuality-doubters, I don't think we're engaging in any "-ism." |
|
|
|
Post by sciatrix on Dec 15, 2010 22:58:32 GMT -5
I'm not really impressed with the convictions of anyone who doesn't hold them strongly enough to defend them. What, precisely, is wrong with arguing?
I'm particularly interested about this claim that activists can oppress majorities/privileged people by virtue of getting angry. I want to know where the institutional oppression is on that. I also would like to know how pressuring activists to refrain from getting angry lest they hurt the feelings of the majority differs from classic silencing and derailing tactics such as the tone argument.
Seriously, guys, I left AVEN in part because I was sick of the tone argument. I really am not particularly happy to be seeing it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by you*hear*but*do*you*listen on Dec 16, 2010 0:05:06 GMT -5
I also would like to know how pressuring activists to refrain from getting angry lest they hurt the feelings of the majority differs from classic silencing and derailing tactics such as the tone argument. Um...me too, actually. Anger has been damn useful in my experience, at least when it's not taken to unnecessary ragesplosion extremes. And, okay, once in a while ragesplosion has worked, but I haven't had to resort to it often. |
|
