Knowing about, understanding, and pastorally caring for asexual persons

[Raphael Jauregui]

How do your churches respond, if it is acknowledged, pastorally to the spiritual and congregational needs of asexual parishioners?

A conversation about relationships outside of marriage reminded me of this subject which is oft left undiscussed and little understood. Since civil marriage, in most legal systems, assumes or stipulates sexual intimacy, a marriage can be annulled if one of the partners testifies that they have not expressed that kind of intimacy. Yet, most countries do not offer a parallel or equal status like civil partnerships (known as civil unions as well) for couples who are at variance with civil marriage including some asexual couples.

Asexual couples may be opposite-gender couples or same-gender couples, and they, at least strictly understanding the word 'asexual,' do not have sexual relations.
ASEXUALS: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?

In some churches, these are recognised. In the Church of England, this would theoretically include many of the clergy in same-sex relationships. "Church of England clergy may enter into gay [civil partnerships] if they assure their bishop they are to remain celibate." BBC NEWS | UK | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Gay cleric's 'wedding' to partner

 

[tstor]

How do your churches respond, if it is acknowledged, pastorally to the spiritual and congregational needs of asexual parishioners?

A conversation about relationships outside of marriage reminded me of this subject which is oft left undiscussed and little understood. Since civil marriage, in most legal systems, assumes or stipulates sexual intimacy, a marriage can be annulled if one of the partners testifies that they have not expressed that kind of intimacy. Yet, most countries do not offer a parallel or equal status like civil partnerships (known as civil unions as well) for couples who are at variance with civil marriage including some asexual couples.

Asexual couples may be opposite-gender couples or same-gender couples, and they, at least strictly understanding the word 'asexual,' do not have sexual relations.
ASEXUALS: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?

In some churches, these are recognised. In the Church of England, this would theoretically include many of the clergy in same-sex relationships. "Church of England clergy may enter into gay [civil partnerships] if they assure their bishop they are to remain celibate." BBC NEWS | UK | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Gay cleric's 'wedding' to partner

Asexual relationships between two individuals of the opposite sex is perfectly fine. Asexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex is not fine.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am concerned about two things:

1) the label "asexual" may prevent people with legitimate psychological and developmental challenges from seeking diagnosis and therapy. I believe the number of genuinely asexual people is quite small, when you exclude things like autism development disorders, psychological trauma, hormone disorders, and other disabilities.

2) this could potential legitimize retrograde attitudes towards sexuality, if asexuality were to become the cool new thing. I could see religious conservatives embracing this idea to pressure gays and the sexually liberated back into their place. They could become the "model-minority" used to defeat progress for the LGBT community.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

I am concerned about two things:

1) the label "asexual" may prevent people with legitimate psychological and developmental challenges from seeking diagnosis and therapy. I believe the number of genuinely asexual people is quite small, when you exclude things like autism development disorders, psychological trauma, hormone disorders, and other disabilities.

2) this could potential legitimize retrograde attitudes towards sexuality, if asexuality were to become the cool new thing. I could see religious conservatives embracing this idea to pressure gays and the sexually liberated back into their place. They could become the "model-minority" used to defeat progress for the LGBT community.

Psychologists estimate that 1% of the population, or 3.25 million people in the USA for reference, are asexual in their orientation. Being asexual is different than having sexual disorders or dysfunctions.

Religious conservatives, thus far anyway, have not embraced them and have further stigmatised them along with the whole LGBTQIA community. One misconception is that asexual people do not have romantic relationships. There are heteroromantic and homoromantic asexual people who seek or have committed, faithful, and loving relationships. To date, only the more liberal churches like TEC or CofE have embraced those relationships. If a same-sex couple, where the partners are asexual, asked to have their marriage or civil partnership blessed or dedicated, they would almost certainly have to go to a liberal church allowing it.

 

[Hank77]

Asexual relationships between two individuals of the opposite sex is perfectly fine. Asexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex is not fine.

Please explain, thanks.

 

[tstor]

Please explain, thanks.

I am not sure how I can make it more clear.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Please explain, thanks.

"a 2004 study in the Journal of Sex Research reported the results of a national sample of more than 18,000 British residents. About 1% described themselves as asexual."
"What ASEXUALITY Is
Beyond the dimensions of feelings and behaviors is something broader - an asexual identity. There a process of self-examination involved in identifying as asexual. Importantly, though, an identity is not just personal - it is also social, cultural, and interpersonal."
"What asexuality Is NOT
1. Asexuality is not the same as sexual dysfunction."
ASEXUALS: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?

 

[Hank77]

I am not sure how I can make it more clear.

Are you saying in the church it is not fine?
Are you saying that in a civil union it is not fine?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Are you saying in the church it is not fine?
Are you saying that in a civil union it is not fine?

Your questions perplex me a bit. Why would asexual persons and asexual persons in committed relationships not be fine? Why would a civil union, which I myself have entered into (hence I selected Legal Union (Other) on my profile), not be fine? In the Episcopal Church, we work to fully include all LGBTQIA people including the 'A' segment or asexuals. However, most churches have not developed a sense of pastoral response or care for asexual persons who become members or adherents.

 

[Hank77]

"a 2004 study in the Journal of Sex Research reported the results of a national sample of more than 18,000 British residents. About 1% described themselves as asexual."
"What ASEXUALITY Is
Beyond the dimensions of feelings and behaviors is something broader - an asexual identity. There a process of self-examination involved in identifying as asexual. Importantly, though, an identity is not just personal - it is also social, cultural, and interpersonal."
"What asexuality Is NOT
1. Asexuality is not the same as sexual dysfunction."
ASEXUALS: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?

There was only one comment about what asexual is not that surprised me.
I believe the explanation in the Bible about eunuchs pretty well covers those who are asexual.

 

[Hank77]

Your questions perplex me a bit. Why would asexual persons and asexual persons in committed relationships not be fine? Why would a civil union, which I myself have entered into (hence I selected Legal Union (Other) on my profile), not be fine? In the Episcopal Church, we work to fully include all LGBTQIA people including the 'A' segment or asexuals. However, most churches have not developed a sense of pastoral response or care for asexual persons who become members or adherents.

I didn't say anything was not fine. I'm asking the other poster why they said it's not fine.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

There was only one comment about what asexual is not that surprised me.
I believe the explanation in the Bible about eunuchs pretty well covers those who are asexual.

Eunuchs were not necessarily asexual. Some were probably asexual, others were castrated and their sexuality was taken away from them, and others may have been homosexual and, so, guarded women as they had no interest in women sexually.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

I didn't say anything was not fine. I'm asking the other poster why they said it's not fine.

Thank you for the clarification. That makes more sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

I find it offensive to compare asexuals with the struggles of gays and transexuals. I've known transexual people that were beaten-up at school regularly. Asexuality? It's just a label, a way to play some word-vodoo with categories. Unless you hang out with jocks and meatheads, nobody cares if you have sex or not. I've never heard of anybody being beaten to death with a baseball bat or fists over a sexual orientation that isn't a sexual orientation, rape being the only exception possibly.

And people should be entitled to an annulment if they marry someone with no sex drive. Sex is a normal part of marriage.

"What asexuality Is NOT
1. Asexuality is not the same as sexual dysfunction."
ASEXUALS: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?

A naked assertion.

1 % is similar to the number of people with autism spectrum disorders. So how do we know that a percentage of asexuals don't in fact have autism?

 

[tstor]

Are you saying in the church it is not fine?
Are you saying that in a civil union it is not fine?

In a church it is not fine. I need you to define "civil union."

 

[Paidiske]

1 % is similar to the number of people with autism spectrum disorders. So how do we know that a percentage of asexuals don't in fact have autism?

Why would you conflate autism with asexuality? A lack of sexual desire isn't a typical part of an autism profile. It's very unhelpful to people with autism to have this kind of misunderstanding of their situation perpetuated.

More on topic, OP, I think there is probably a broader problem, and that is that - in general - only a very narrow range of relationships tend to be acknowledged and celebrated in church. I'm not talking here about relationships some might consider sinful, but - for example - I've often had single people express to me their frustration that there is no end of Bible studies and whatnot on marriage, but an awful lack of similar resources on, say, friendship. And yet friendship is an extremely important dimension of life for most of us!

I'm not really sure why that is. And I'm not really sure what the big-picture answers to it might be. At a grass-roots level I've tried, at least, to broaden what's on my bookshelf and resource myself for a wider range of discussions, but I'm not sure that I've got it anywhere near right yet, either.

 

[Hank77]

In a church it is not fine. I need you to define "civil union."

Civil union would be a contract between two people and the state which gives them the same legal privileges as a married couple.
We could add a 'civil marriage', secular with a magistrate but not in the church.

 

[tstor]

Civil union would be a contract between two people and the state which gives them the same legal privileges as a married couple.
We could add a 'civil marriage', secular with a magistrate but not in the church.

Not a problem.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why would you conflate autism with asexuality? A lack of sexual desire isn't a typical part of an autism profile. It's very unhelpful to people with autism to have this kind of misunderstanding of their situation perpetuated.

It's not typical but it is more common than among those who are not autistic.

Another category of people that would have no interest in sex, would be people that have survived sexual trauma.

The label "asexual" could be unhelpful to all these people. It implies a fixed orientation to sexuality, when in many cases, a persons sexual interest can be influenced or determined by treatable mental and physical conditions.

 

[FireDragon76]

Churches already spend too much time trying to create these sorts of ministries by compartmentalizing our lives and preaching and teaching around "felt needs". What is so unclear about "love your neighbor as yourself"? Maybe it's something about the Reformed world, that you guys expect a uniquely "Christian" way of doing things? A holdover from Calvinist biblicism?