ASDs=less sex?

Post Reply New Topic

So, I was reading yesterday's New York Times and I stumbled across this letter.

(bolded for emphasis)

Letter to the editor (4th one down)


I'm really not following this woman's train of thought. ASDs=less sex? I can imagine that on the whole, fewer social skills could cause fewer marriages, but it seems that the article is discussing specifically sex in healthy marriages.

I'm not even going to comment on the claim that there are rising levels of ASDs (more people getting diagnosed does not equal more people that could be diagnosed), but seeing as how it's mostly genetic, you'd think there'd be a reasonable rate of reproduction.

No it is true that people with autism are likely to have less, or indeed no sex. Sex is simply far too intimate for many autistic people, and many autistics (Such as myself) are Asexual.

My question more is whether this would still be true in (good) marriages?

ofcourse it would, love does not equal sex.

Personally I'd love to have more sex. I think sex is a wonderful thing. Only problem is that I'm very bad at talking to girls, when it is a girl I'm physically and/or emotionally attracted to. And I have the most rotten luck in the world with girls in general.

I can see it. Less sex does not equate to less reproduction if you think about it. How many times on average during a lifetime do people have sex? I don't know the number, but I bet it's many times more than the number of children they have. And I'll bet that's true even of people with ASD for the most part. It only takes once to cause pregnancy.

Oh no, whatever would we do if teenage girls weren't getting knocked up because all the guys were too busy suffering from ASD reading Star Wars books. Maybe we could use all the money saved on birth control pills to "cure" autism and restore the natural order of teen pregnancy.

On a more serious note I think it's funny that they would name ASD as one of three main causes of declining interest. I can't imagine myself having any more interest.

And sex does not equal love. If a person with autism was in an established relationship, I don't see why there would be any problems with having sex on a regular basis. In fact I think it might be easier to establish that sense of security and comfort most autistic people need, so it would be easier to enjoy the sex. You know the person you're with, you trust him/her, you are more comfortable with your partner's touch.

I have been in one relationship, which lasted 3½ years, and we had plenty of sex during that time. It was just as often she who didn't want to have sex as it was me (she was not autistic).

Wait so your girlfriend dident want to have sex but you had i anyway?

Obesity and toxins are acceptable causes, But narcissism and ASD? What in the hell is this even about? I think the original article would give more context.

Maybe so, but the rest of us are more than happy to make up for the deficit. 'Many' is not 'all', nor even 'most'.

The whole notion is flawed from the git-go. As noted, more ASDs diagnosed does not mean there are statistically more Autistic people on the planet than ever before, only that more of those who are here are being recognized as Autistic.

For every person here on WP who claims to be asexual, there are ten guys pining for a relationship and I don't believe they're wishing so fervently for a platonic friendship. It may be more difficult for someone with poor social skills to meet and court, but that doesn't prevent it from happening, it just takes longer to find a suitable match, or to develop coping mechanisms and hookup skills.

This 'psychotherapist' apparently believes ASDs are more prevalent because she believes they're caused by environmental, rather than genetic factors (its the only logic that would support her hypothesis), and she also seems to believe Autistic people are ALL asexual which is ludicrous. But then she also seems to think people with Narcissisitic PD never get laid and from what I've seen there's a whole class of people specifically drawn to that type of personality.

Now she might be right about the rising level of obesity causing people to have less sex, but it would only start a round of bickering to speculate on that...

Hahaha no of course not. What I am saying is that we both wanted to have sex or did not want to have sex equally (not always at the same time, but counting the times she didn't want to and the times I didn't want to, it would be more or less the same).

The way I interpreted the article and response was:

Article: Women are so distracted by their jobs and desensitized by the media that they're less interested in having sex.
Response: No, the workplace isn't the problem. One possible cause is that there's a rising rate of (people in white, middle class marriages) not having sex as frequently because they've got ASDs.

mabye its a good thing people are having less sex, it could be a sign that people are respecting women more, and our population is too high anyway. it goes like this:

Population is low, learn how to keep people alive
Population Increases
Population is high, Runs out of resources
Population Decreases
Population is low, learn how to keep people alive
Population Increases
Population is high, Runs out of resources
Population Decreases

and so on

Link to original article is at the top of the letter to the editor page (or, click here)

It seems like the original article is a bunch of sexist drivel about how women being more equal is neutering men and causing women to become frigid dominatrixes too busy running the world and not making their man a sandwich - not based on any scientific data but apparently because they're working on a drug for female sexual desire (though I don't recall anyone getting in such a fit over Viagra). Neither the article or the response sites any studies that actually show that people are having less sex, nor does the response cite any actual research - I have to conclude it's people making up stuff over some problem that's not actually shown to exist.