What is "asexual elitism" and why does AVEN discourage it?

[Beachwalker]

The German definition of not being interested in having sex works for me. It is simple and accurate. I don't think it's elitist in the slightest. And like maz said just because people have sex to please their partners doesn't mean they are interested in having sex, it just means they are interested in pleasing their partners.

[Maz]

The German definition of not being interested in having sex works for me

Actually we are using "Asexualität - kein Verlangen nach sexueller Interaktion." which comes closest to "no desire for sex(ual interaction)". As mentioned it would probably be better to just use "interest" although (as Nogitsune might have wanted to point out) "not being interested in sex" tends to create the association of not being "academically interested" in sex either. And as sex and sexuality are also strongly connected this might lead to situations like: [Aven User] "I'm asexual, that means I'm not interested in sex. There is a Site called Aven where asexuals discuss (a)sexuality". [other Person] "But why do you engage in those topics if you are not interested in sex(uality)? You can't really be asexual."

[Beachwalker]

That's not the case with the German definition!

With that definition asexuality doesn't mean not having sex but not being interested in having sex. That doesn't rule out the possibilty to have sex (altough it reduces the probability in the same way as the US-defintion does. Why should you have sex if you are not interested in it and/or are not sexually attracted to anybody?).

However this definition does include all people who are disinterested out of reasons that wouldn't be considered an orientation. Such as negative experiences in the past, hormonal imbalances, etc. It also, of course, doesn't rule out sexual attraction. You can still be an asexual if you are sexually attracted to other people.

Is this the German definition? Or is it desire?

[Maz]

The definition used on the German front page is desire ("Verlangen" can best be transalted as desire/demand/craving...). I corrected myself later. I probably had the slogans on the flyers in mind in the first place. The first digital version of the flyer from 2005 which can still be viewed at ( http://asexuality.org/de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=71 ) actually used "kein Wunsch an sexueller Interaktion" which means "no wish for sexual interaction". There was a bit of discussion about the wording back then and before the first official print-run of 5000 Flyers was issued it was changed to "kein Verlangen nach sexueller Interaktion" ( the discussion can be viewed here: http://asexuality.org/haupt/viewtopic.php?t=40&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=56 ). The current version also uses desire ( http://www.asexuell-hd.de/neuer_AVEN_Flyer3.pdf ). Also there is a survey existing since 2006 which currently leads to a majority of roughly 80% vs 20% who would prefer the desire/interaction-based-definition above the attraction-based definition although the interest in this topic is rather low and many users would agree on both dimensions ( http://www.asexuality.org/haupt/viewtopic.php?t=2314). The whole process mostly took place back in 2005 when most of the English material was translated into German and locally adepted. Back then AVENus had something like 4-5k users and AVENde roughly 300-400 so the most active Users naturally had a great influence on the process. With currently roughly 35000 users on AVENus and >8000 on AVENde and all the users on all the other language boards (summing up to a similar number) it will probably never be possible to combine those two definitions or to find a completeley new one that would be globally accepted.

[Vampyremage]

I do not believe it is possible to experience and internal motivation towards sex with other people without also experiencing some sort of sexual attraction.

Prostitution could fit in here. People going to prostitutes have a strong internal sexual motivation but usually no "real" attraction to someone specific. It gets even more complicated with the prostitutes themsleves. I'm guessing here but I think many prostitutes probably don't experience sexual attraction. And although they have a strong motivation for sexual behaviour this motivation is probably not (primarily) sexual at all. They might not experience an obvious sexual desire or craving for sex. So that would make a lot of or even most prostitutes asexual. That might be true even if a desire based definition is used. Only the use of the word "interest" instead of "desire" that is "interest in sexual behaviour" would clearly include them in the "sexual" realm. Of course one could also argue that being asexual is the optimal precondition for the job...but I don't think there is anything asexual left here.

A couple of things of note in regards to prostitution. First, I think the primary motivation for prostitution is external rather than internal. For most I would think the motivation is going to be money, and that is definatly an external motivation. Second, when I speak of the comparison between the motivation towards sex and sexual attraction, I am speaking in general rather than specific terms. That is to say, while I do not believe the internal motivation towards sex with other people can exist without sexual attraction in general, I do not believe one necessarily needs be sexually attracted to the specific individual one is having sex with in order to feel motivated towards having sex. Thus, a prostitute may not necessarily be sexually attracted to the people (s)he is having sex with but may still experience it towards other people.

[Maz]

Maybe "Asexuality: No internal motivation for sexual interaction" would be a good definition.

It avoids the interest vs. desire problem and includes all the "other reasons for having sex" for as long as they are purely externally motivated. Also one could argue that sexual attraction is a specific internal motivation for sexual interaction so it would cover the attraction-based definition aswell.

Thus, a prostitute may not necessarily be sexually attracted to the people (s)he is having sex with but may still experience it towards other people.

That's true maybe the prostitute who experiences no attraction outside of the job is rather a corner case although two "worlds" are spearated here that usually come together.

[Vampyremage]

Maybe "Asexuality: No internal motivation for sexual interaction" would be a good definition.

It avoids the interest vs. desire problem and includes all the "other reasons for having sex" for as long as they are purely externally motivated. Also one could argue that sexual attraction is a specific internal motivation for sexual interaction so it would cover the attraction-based definition aswell.

The only ting I would add there is to specify with other people. The reason I think that's important is that many asexuals have a libido that and thus do masturbate, which is often considered a sexual activity.

[Maz]

There are sexual orientations not directed towards other people so that's probably misleading.

I don't think there is a problem with masturbation though as masturbation is a sexual activity but not a sexual interaction.

[Vampyremage]

What sorts of sexual orientations exist that are not directed towards other people? Aside from asexuality, I am not aware of any.

[Maz]

I don't know the english terms but possible orientations are: towards objects (they call themeselves "Objektophile"). There are quite a number of them in the German board. Some would also call themeselves asexual but all of them believe they are actually interacting emotionally and/or sexually with the objects they love/desire and most of them experience sexual attraction towards those objects so they are probably better regarded as a different "category".

And towards animals (Sodomists(?)) we certainly don't want to include that group!

We have even had some cases where people orientated towards children wanted to abuse the term asexuality for their cause, but that's another matter...

[PSUtatiana]

CLAPS, as well. Thank God we have some smart people in the world. There is one definition to asexuality and THAT'S IT! It really isn't that complicated... well at least not to me.

I don't understand asexual elitists. Nor would I ever have a real conversation with one because it would make me want to become deaf.

[naomilawlietjr]

*claps* Thank you.

I hate it when sexuals think I'm an asexual elitist whose trying to take away their sex.

MY OWN MOTHER said, and I quote, "[Name] You can't hate people who like having sex." I said patiently that I do not, and have never done so, and she backpedaled, saying "I know you don't. I'm just reminding you, honey.

Me:

[Nrem]

Came to clap as well. Ended up reading the last three pages....they were rather fraught. But good on the OP. Thanks for the post. Makes me feel welcome to poke around a bit more!

[LovetheA]

Thanks for that post! I was really fuzzy on the subject, but this absolutely clarified it for me! Thanks for being so tremendously helpful!

An asexual elitist is simply somebody who thinks that asexuality is defined by sexual behavior rather than by sexual attraction.

That was quick and painless, right? :D You can stop reading now, if you want to, because this is an old subject, which, for some reason, Just. Won't. Die.

In the 6 1/2 years I have been here at AVEN, I have lost count of how many times I have seen it.

The same old thing keeps keeps coming up over and over again:

You can't possibly be a "pure" asexual because *gasp* you do X, Y, or *double gasp* even Z!

It's worth noting that the people who make these statements are, without exception, NOT speaking from a position which represents AVEN. This is not to say that they aren't sincere in their beliefs, or perhaps even very well-intentioned in stating them, only to say that they don't fully understand what AVEN's definition of asexuality IS.

The definition of asexuality as it pertains to humans has nothing at all to do with sexual behavior. Full stop. That's it.

In theory, a person could even earn their living as a prostitute and still be a perfectly valid asexual.

Asexuality is defined as not experiencing sexual attraction to either (or any) gender. That's all. It has nothing at all to do with libido or with behavior.

Libido could be defined as a type of itch. Some people itch more than others, but the amount doesn't matter. What matters, when determining sexual orientation, is whether the person would prefer for somebody else to help them scratch it when/if it happens. If they would prefer help, and if they prefer it from someone of their own sex, we call them homosexual. If they get the itch, and prefer help from someone of the opposite sex to help them scratch it, we call them heterosexual. If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual. (To put it very bluntly, whether or not a person masturbates has no bearing on their sexual orientation.)

A person who has sex with someone to whom they are not sexually attracted does NOT have to change their orientation in order to do so.

In other words, a gay person who has straight sex under extenuating circumstances is still gay, and a straight person who has gay sex under extenuating circumstances is still straight.

An asexual who has sex under extenuating circumstances is still asexual.

An extenuating circumstance can be almost anything. Seriously! It doesn't have to be a death threat! It might be nothing more than the path of least resistance which will avoid an argument or, even worse, the loss of a relationship.

None of us can get inside another person's head and know, with absolute certainty, WHY they do what they do, so we have to take them at their word. That's why the policy at AVEN is to let each person decide, for themself whether or not they are asexual.

*climbs down from soap box*

Ya'll go ahead and chime in if you want to!

-GB

[Russ23]

Being asexual has many different inherent values. some people react one =way while others react a different way. Only you know how you feel and you create your own path. Become what you want to be not what others want you to be.

[Nameless123]

Being asexual has many different inherent values. some people react one =way while others react a different way. Only you know how you feel and you create your own path. Become what you want to be not what others want you to be.

What are the inherent values of being asexual?

[Russ23]

Being asexual has many different inherent values. some people react one =way while others react a different way. Only you know how you feel and you create your own path. Become what you want to be not what others want you to be.

What are the inherent values of being asexual?

In my line of thinking I would say not having to conform to society lust for sexual experiences. I've seen my friends do countless irrational things to to stay/ start a relationship. Some of them have had so many sexual partners that they begin to look at the opposite sex as meat or a challenge. Society focus on sex often puts more emphasis on the deed rather than connection with the person.

In hindsight I would have used different words in my original post, but my mind was addled by a large helping of brandy.

[Nameless123]

In hindsight I would have used different words in my original post, but my mind was addled by a large helping of brandy.

That's all right. Happens to all of us :)

[Skratch]

What you're saying makes sense; the definition is by ATTRACTION, not BEHAVIOR.

But I always thought of asexual elitism as thinking you're superior to sexuals - which I must admit, I do sometimes. Because we're "above" the need to have sex. What do y'all think of that? Does anybody else feel this way?

I agree to some extent that asexuals, like myself, are in some regards 'superior' (for lack of a better word) to sexuals because many of the rituals of sex, the seeking of it and the mentality that goes with it shackles... at least that's how I sometimes see it.

the problem with words like superior and elite is the insinuation that it implies that label plays a role of being an oppressor which is something that is the complete opposite to what I am and how I feel. I actually hate dominant mentalities.

to be honest I feel as if I am as an individual so much more free when compared to sexuals yet I also feel more alienated because I am apart of a minority (I don't know any asexuals irl).

I hope this doesn't offend anyone. I new here and I'm just speaking my mind. respect to all walks :)

[Skratch]

Being asexual has many different inherent values. some people react one =way while others react a different way. Only you know how you feel and you create your own path. Become what you want to be not what others want you to be.

What are the inherent values of being asexual?

In my line of thinking I would say not having to conform to society lust for sexual experiences. I've seen my friends do countless irrational things to to stay/ start a relationship. Some of them have had so many sexual partners that they begin to look at the opposite sex as meat or a challenge. Society focus on sex often puts more emphasis on the deed rather than connection with the person.

In hindsight I would have used different words in my original post, but my mind was addled by a large helping of brandy.

I feel the same especially when you said "emphasis on the deed rather than connection"

[Doppel]

What you're saying makes sense; the definition is by ATTRACTION, not BEHAVIOR.

But I always thought of asexual elitism as thinking you're superior to sexuals - which I must admit, I do sometimes. Because we're "above" the need to have sex. What do y'all think of that? Does anybody else feel this way?

I agree to some extent that asexuals, like myself, are in some regards 'superior' (for lack of a better word) to sexuals because many of the rituals of sex, the seeking of it and the mentality that goes with it shackles... at least that's how I sometimes see it.

the problem with words like superior and elite is the insinuation that it implies that label plays a role of being an oppressor which is something that is the complete opposite to what I am and how I feel. I actually hate dominant mentalities.

to be honest I feel as if I am as an individual so much more free when compared to sexuals yet I also feel more alienated because I am apart of a minority (I don't know any asexuals irl).

I hope this doesn't offend anyone. I new here and I'm just speaking my mind. respect to all walks :)

I can see what you are saying, however I disagree that asexuals are somehow superior to other people. I don't really see how not having the desire to do the dance required for the rituals of sex is really a plus for those who don’t or a negative for the people who do.

By this logic asexuals who have romantic inclinations are "less superior" than aromantic asexuals who don't do the dance of romantic relationships rituals, is this true? I certainly do not believe so. This is where is becomes a slippery slope and is why asexual elitism/superiority is discouraged.

The only argument I can really think of is you might have some more free time on your hands? That doesn't make one superior though, if you’re anything like me you’re most likely not using that extra time doing anything particularly productive. Most likely wasting my time on youtube or looking at pictures of cats. :lol:

[Skratch]

I can see what you are saying, however I disagree that asexuals are somehow superior to other people. I don't really see how not having the desire to do the dance required for the rituals of sex is really a plus for those who don’t or a negative for the people who do.

By this logic asexuals who have romantic inclinations are "less superior" than aromantic asexuals who don't do the dance of romantic relationships rituals, is this true? I certainly do not believe so. This is where is becomes a slippery slope and is why asexual elitism/superiority is discouraged.

The only argument I can really think of is you might have some more free time on your hands? That doesn't make one superior though, if you’re anything like me you’re most likely not using that extra time doing anything particularly productive. Most likely wasting my time on youtube or looking at pictures of cats. :lol:

I don't believe that asexuals are superior in general and I really hate how it sounds/looks to. it's just I see the desire to have sex (predominately mainstream media's portrayal of it) as a primal urge much like lust and with saying that, it differs from the more romantic approach of expressing love for someone.

so I guess at times (and I'm only being honest with myself here) I do feel better of by not being a slave to this 'primal urge'.

I totally agree with the original post that is against elitism and that promotes equality and understanding but sometimes I feel so fortunate for being asexual... especial now that I've discovered AVEN. sorry if it sound like I'm pro elite because that couldn't be further from the truth (as confusing as it sounds)

[Vampyremage]

I can see what you are saying, however I disagree that asexuals are somehow superior to other people. I don't really see how not having the desire to do the dance required for the rituals of sex is really a plus for those who don’t or a negative for the people who do.

By this logic asexuals who have romantic inclinations are "less superior" than aromantic asexuals who don't do the dance of romantic relationships rituals, is this true? I certainly do not believe so. This is where is becomes a slippery slope and is why asexual elitism/superiority is discouraged.

The only argument I can really think of is you might have some more free time on your hands? That doesn't make one superior though, if you’re anything like me you’re most likely not using that extra time doing anything particularly productive. Most likely wasting my time on youtube or looking at pictures of cats. :lol:

I don't believe that asexuals are superior in general and I really hate how it sounds/looks to. it's just I see the desire to have sex (predominately mainstream media's portrayal of it) as a primal urge much like lust and with saying that, it differs from the more romantic approach of expressing love for someone.

so I guess at times (and I'm only being honest with myself here) I do feel better of by not being a slave to this 'primal urge'.

I totally agree with the original post that is against elitism and that promotes equality and understanding but sometimes I feel so fortunate for being asexual... especial now that I've discovered AVEN. sorry if it sound like I'm pro elite because that couldn't be further from the truth (as confusing as it sounds)

I think that even asexuals have their urges and desires. If those desires do not involve or include sex, the desires are still nevertheless there. By this logic, it could be argued that a lack of romantic desire is likewise superior to those who experience romantic desire which is something I certainly do not believe. Asexuals and sexuals might be different in their range and possibly even sometimes intensity of desire, but no one is superior to the other, only different.

Additionally, I am not convinced that having desires or urges is bad in and of itself. There are many things that go into living a fulfilled life and one's urges are among these things. Personally, I prefer to moderate my urges but to try and deny them all together seems unnatural. Even as someone who is highly intellectual, I see balance as important in all things and that includes balancing one's urges against other things that are important in one's life.

[Guest]

This thread helped me so much!!! Even the part with Maz & Nogi arguing (much as I must say, it was stressful to read...), as the subtle difference between the German & US def's were confusing, but it was enlightening to notice exactly what confuses me. :D

I'm grateful for having had the (previously very elusive to me) concept of "sexual attraction" cleared up by the itch metaphor... explained like that, now I know for sure I don't feel it.

And as it seems slightly "bad form" to first post here, I guess I'll go look for the Introductions/Welcome subforum now. ;)

[5_♦♣]

And as it seems slightly "bad form" to first post here, I guess I'll go look for the Introductions/Welcome subforum now. ;)

There's no rule that ones first post has to be an introduction thread in the welcome lounge. Heck, my first post was in the gender discussion form and a year later, I still haven't made an introduction thread.

[Jordy Meow]

Thank you! Wow, I have been wondering that as well. That explained it perfectly <3 :)

[Arches]

An asexual elitist is simply somebody who thinks that asexuality is defined by sexual behavior rather than by sexual attraction.

That was quick and painless, right? :D

I thought that elitists meant "death to all sexuals!!! *shakes flags of doom* Now that confuses me... I am repulse by both organs... I get turned off when people try to get into it... I am only turned on by fetish stuff... (why a human when you can have a machine O_O seriously... disease free... Machines are the elite!!! I'm robosexual! Just messing with you.)

So... it's confusing because the plumbing works here... if anything chew my ear I'm going to get wet... but if anything try to get in there (except bender or some terminator) I'm going to freak out...

I can be attracted by meat but I want to chew it not shove it... (I mean neck... I kinda have a vampire thing...)

I can look at anything and say "wow that's really good looking and it looks warm" but I wouldn't say "wow I want to F that A"

It's really confusing and you sir, just burned my noodles some more.

But oh well, it's written everywhere that as long as you feel like the label is a cozy blanket, you can use the asexual term as it pleases you. I guess that being severe about who can or not would be the true way to be an elitist about it~ ney~ *pokes you*

It's hard for me because I might be a asexual bi-romantic... how do I know what ends where between cuddle and sex attraction...

I just want to die a virgin and would rather die than have human sex...

But I need a hug~~~~ ;_;

[ithaca]

Hey Arches,

"death to all sexuals" can be seen as elitism, but I think it's more of an anti-sexual feeling/position.

"Asexual elitism" is something that we encounter when peeps say that "those aces who have sex, those are not real aces", followed often by words as "true asexual", "real asexual", "pure asexual". Ugh.

I wrote something about it, if you're interested. You can find it clicking >>here<<.

There's nothing wrong with both deciding to have sex and deciding not to, or being repulsed by it. We are all different, eventually.

[lastowl]

by the title i thought you were on about feeling superior for being an ace... but i agree with the post very god :D

[Asexy51]

"a straight person who has gay sex under extenuating circumstances is still straight" Are you kidding me? I think that everything not just sexuality is defined by how a person acts, other way their feelings will became null and soon they will be lost. It's like you say to someone: "I love you" and instead of giving him a hug you punch him, but in this situation the only person you are beating up is yourself.