Is it normal to not want sex most of the time?

It's perfectly normal. It does not mean you're demisexual, asexual, grey-asexual, or any other 'label du jour'. You're just you, and you have a low-normal sex drive.

The nervousness you're feeling could well be simply because you don't have a lot of experience, which, in turn, can also contribute to the lowered sex drive. Anxiety, depression, and anger are all tied to decreases in sex drive.

You also don't say how old you are, and that can play into sex drive as well.

In short... you're perfeclty normal, and well within the range. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. My guess is that as the anxiety gets more under control, and you begin to feel more comfortable with yourself, you'll find the sex drive increasing.

 

I'm trying to walk a fine line here. The "label du jour" comment was out of line and I apologize for that. It does feel factual to me, as these unrecognized labels are popping up at an alarming rate, but it isn't a respectful description.

The truth is, there is -zero- credible research I'm aware of showing that any of the unrecognized identities actually exist as distinct, separate identities, and there is an overwhelming amount of anecdotal support from clinicians and other professionals that show that these identities don't actually hold up to scrutiny. Of the few studies I've seen, almost all were done by one person, who had a strong bias, and who conveniently overlooked the inherent confound that most of the studied population is identified with mental health issues (depression, anxiety, aggression) that have, as one of their primary symptoms, the exact same reduced sex drive that is consistent with the unrecognized labels.

The most common argument I hear counter to that is "Well, but they haven't been studied." Except that those in the field have, in fact, been looking at sexual identity for some 60+ years. All of the unrecognized identities have appeared within the last 5 to 10 years, and pretty much all of the validation for them is essentially consensual reality... a bunch of people get together and decide, between them, with no grounding, study, basis, or anything else, to actually verify that these identities are real and distinct from the well-established and well documented identities that exist. By comparison, we could get 100 people together and those 100 people could collectively decide that they are aliens, born on another planet. Perhaps they've had dreams or experiences or something that made them believe that. And perhaps they were born on another planet. But -- Occam's razor -- the simpler (and more likely) assumption is that they weren't. It's hard to make a much different case for the unrecognized identities when there are simpler, more common, and more logical solutions (identities) that fit, arguably, just as well.

To put it really bluntly, among the (pretty large) pool of clincial professionals I've spoken with on the issue, which includes sexologists, psychologists, clinical social workers, and researchers, there are almost none (maybe 1 or 2 out of the 100+ I've spoken to about it over the years) that find any credibility in these unrecognized labels. The common thinking is that they are descriptions for other issues that have nothing to do with sexual orientation, but manifest symptoms that mimic orientation or identity issues. (I've made this clear above, so I won't repeat myself.)

Now... that said, it is also not my place to devalue someone's beliefs. If you hold a belief that you are asexual, gray-asexual, demisexual, lithrosexual, or whatever other unrecognized identity you want to use, that's absolutely your right and your perogative. But where I have to draw the line is when anyone starts advocating for those unrecognized identities as a solution for people who are trying to find themselves. We aren't doing anyone a service by encouraging them to adopt identities that, by all credible accounts, are exceptionally rare at best (asexuality, by its proper definition) or don't appear to be actually different from already defined circumstances (demisexuality, etc.)

If any given label actually has validity, it should certainly be able to withstand discussion, challenge, and critical analysis. But whenever anyone tries to have any reasoned discussion, those who identify with those labels immediately scream that "their identity is being erased" which is a ridiculous, dramatic, and emotional argument that doesn't actually help in looking objectively at the situation.

I know this viewpoint is upsetting to those who hold those identities. That isn't my intent. And at the same time, we are doing a disservice to people if we simply accept at face value any unrecognized label. Anything as important as how people identify themselves deserves nothing less than to have some certainty behind it.

I hope you can see that the intent here is to ensure that accurate, scientifically robust information is out there to the people who most need it, not to devalue people.

 

Sorry about that.

"Asexual", according to Oxford, means "A person who has no sexual feelings or desires."

If you don't have sexual feelings or desires, then you don't have sex drive, sexual desire, and you also don't experience sexual love.

Believe what you want. It's not OK to hijack a definition to fit some belief system with no grounding in research, scientific study, or broad acceptance among the professional community.

And here we have the classic non-scientific refutation based on a single experience that does not generalize.

Not everyone who is depressed loses sex drive. Many do, but not all. Plenty of depressed people masturbate, have sex, are in relationships. But you do find, often, that for those who are depressed and have no sex drive (and who would probably comprise a large part of the self-diagnosed "asexuals"), the sex drive returns when the depression lifts. Ergo, these people were certainly not asexual, because true asexuals are hardwired and cannot change, any more than homosexuals can change.

Sorry, but I'm simply not buying what you're selling. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't match mainstream thought by credible professionals and the field as a whole.

 

Apples and oranges. The most solid studies that show that being gay is not a choice come from things like MRI brain imaging that show differences in brains. This has zero to do with asexuality.

OK, in rereading what I wrote above, I thought I'd earlier made something clear which apparently I did not (though I've said it probably a hundred times in other threads here.)

Asexuality most certainly exists. When we are talking about the actual, correct use of the term, it is quite rare (less than 1% of the population) and hardwired in the same way that sexual orientation is. The actual meaning of the term, and its implications, is described above in an earlier post.

So I've never said, nor do I believe, that asexuality does not exist. The other labels... there is, in fact, zero evidence to support their existence, and voluminous evidence (anecdotal and otherwise) that they simply describe experiences that a large variety of people experience that aren't separate from already-accepted definitions, and certainly aren't sexual orientations, in that they aren't hardwired.

Anything else, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, is just somebody's hijacking of the actual use of the term, or consensual reality with no basis in science, research, or even agreement among the professions. That's not in dispute.

Again, I'm not in any way saying asexuals don't exist. I'm saying the term is grossly misused and has been hijacked by a small but vocal contingent that hasn't actually looked at the facts, data, experience of those who work with these populations day in and out, and accepted thinking among those in the field.

I think comparing a focus on evidence-based practice (which is a value that the EC admin team and board hold pretty strongly) with anti-gay lobbyists who are the antithesis of evidence-based practice is pretty ridiculous.

As I said in my lengthy post above, it's a fine line to walk. If you want to label yourself asexual using criteria that don't match accepted thinking, that's certainly your choice. I can decide I have measles when I have few symptoms that match measles... but I can't reasonably expect that those with knowledge of the field are going to accept my self-diagnosis when it doesn't fit the diagnostic criteria.

I also can't responsibly try to promote a view that doesn't match current thinking, especially when there are often co-occurring conditions that may be influencing the symptoms I'm using to diagnose myself. That's incredibly irresponsible to others who are looking for accurate, honest information to figure out where they are.