Jump to content


Photo

Asexulaity: Classifications


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

#1 msc42

msc42

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 03 September 2005 - 11:19 PM

Please forgive me if this has come up before, but I am very new to this site and couldn't possibly have read all the posts of the past.
I am curious about "types" of asexuality. I am seeing different types in many posts, so I find myself wondering what we can learn. I have heard of studies in which scientists attempt to determine why some people are homosexual--e.g "is there a hormone deficiency?" I have never heard of such tests being done upon asexuals. Wouldn't that be the next step? I see the following types. The labels are my own creation:

1. Bio-Asexuals. This would be the group that actually had sexual feelings and/or sexual relations, but due to loss of libido for whatever reason, they no longer desire sex. ("I LOST IT").

2. Learned Asexuals: Possibly due to a trauma, or just due to personal feelings, this group finds sex distasteful, unimportant, simply not worth the "trouble". ('I DON'T NEED IT").

3. Enforced Asexuals: This group may desire sex but can't seek it due to outside forces. An example would be a normally sexual person in solitary confinement in prison. ('I CAN'T GET IT").

4. Birth Asexuals: This group has never given sex a thought. They don't find it distasteful; the feelings just did not manifest. ("I NEVER HAD IT".) This category might be split, since I am reading that some asexuals do express their sexuality (e.g. masturbation) while others do not.

Into which group would you classify yourself? Does anyone feel that there is a category I missed? Do you believe that classifying asexuality is valid? I, for instance, see myself as a Birth-Asexual, sub-category "A" (I do masturbate, but I find the act little more than a bodily function akin to brushing my teeth--it empties my prostate). I would like to know why "normal" sexual desire never manifested in me. I would love to see a study in which heterosexuals, homosexuals and asexuals undergo CAT-scans or MRIs. What would be different between the three groups?

#2 Chronicler

Chronicler

    AVENger

  • Members
  • 3,218 posts
  • Location:Chicago suburbia

Posted 04 September 2005 - 12:49 AM

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as an "enforced asexual." I just have this weird image of this person in prison who, after he gets out, starts having sex with as many people as possible. Doesn't seem asexual to me or something like that.

Re the category things, though, I don't know...I never really had sexual feelings...never experienced a trauma either...though I don't think sex is worth the "trouble" at all anyway. I remember recalling a now-defunct system that attempted to categorize asexuals into four categories (A, B, C, and D) based on if they had a sex drive or romantic attraction or something. For whatever reasons, that is now nonexistent.
Larry Fleinhardt: "Evariste Galois. Brilliant mathematician, not unlike yourself..."
Charlie Eppes: "I know where you're going with this..."
Larry Fleinhardt: "...And at the age of twenty, he was killed in a duel--and who even knows what he might have accomplished."
Charlie Eppes: "I would say I'm actually pretty good at avoiding duels."

#3 Kez

Kez

    AVENator

  • Members
  • 3,686 posts
  • Location:Vancouver

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:24 AM

The 'types' were based on attraction, and desire.

They were retired because they were a hinderance - people can change, and the types seemed to lock people into a category.

1. Bio-Asexuals. This seems to me to be speaking more about libido and desire, not attraction.

2. Learned Asexuals: Possibly due to a trauma, or just due to personal feelings, this group finds sex distasteful, unimportant, simply not worth the "trouble". ('I DON'T NEED IT"). Again, desire and want are diminished, anot not neseccarily attraction.

3. Enforced Asexuals: I dont think this exists. This is more of a supply and demand type thing.

4. Birth Asexuals: Most people on this site would fall into this category, but again the masturbation thing doesnt indicate attraction.
The prolonged application of a polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression, rendering the ultimate tendency apocryphal.

#4 gbrd143

gbrd143

    Asexy Authoritay!

  • AVEN Members
  • 8,350 posts
  • Location:South Sound area, Washington state
  • A/Sexuality:Flamin' Asexual! YEAH, baby!!

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:25 AM

I don't think your third category would be considered asexual. They would be invocels, or involuntary celibates.

Aside from that, we don't really question how a person becomes asexual. The basic definition is fairly simple: people who don't want to have sex with other people.
Everything else is just a matter of individual variations.

-Greybird F.A.
Brought to you by:Posted Image
Greybird's Gallery of Death
and by

APositive!

#5 Rabger

Rabger

    AVENger

  • AVEN Members
  • 3,365 posts
  • Gender:Hard andro
  • A/Sexuality:Demi-homoromantic asexual

Posted 04 September 2005 - 03:57 AM

No offense, but this is easy to rip apart. You focus asexuality on sex. Its not about sex, or lack thereof. You also seem to focus on a sex drive, which has nothing to do with asexuality, and not sexual attraction, which does. And what should be obvious, but isn't because of your jail bird example, is that asexuality is not about whether or not you can "get any."

For the sex thing I direct you to my old post: Sex sex sex
http://www.asexualit...e6c7e472161ee82

For the sexual drive thing I direct you to my new post: Asexuality, in all its parts
http://www.asexualit...e6c7e472161ee82[/url]
I am the Almighty Rabger. Give me a carrot or I'll bite your face off.

#6 Shion

Shion

    Mega Mitosis

  • Members
  • 297 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:16 PM

well why does nobody questions about why everyone else seemed so sex-crazed? the desire of sex goes far beyond that of procreation needs to ensure human population right? :?
"If there are two or more ways to do the job and at least one of which may result in a catastrophe, then somebody will do it."

-Murphy's Law

#7 Shivers

Shivers

    Kickin

  • Members
  • 6,992 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 04 September 2005 - 05:24 PM

IMHO, the first one can either be just a fact or a medical concern (depending on if it concerns the person who has it.) the second is more celibacy, the third is more just about a lack of societal graces or else (I hate to say it but it is true) a lack of physical attractiveness.

I would say that the only one that counts as asexuality is the fourth one; where there simply is no natural desire.

There is a bit of overlap in the first and second cases..... if they indeed no longer have any sexual desire, AS WELL as being incapable / off-put, then that could be asexuality too. But then thats more falling into both categories rather than the first two categories being subsets of asexuality.

People who "simply cant get any" are not asexual in my books.

#8 gbrd143

gbrd143

    Asexy Authoritay!

  • AVEN Members
  • 8,350 posts
  • Location:South Sound area, Washington state
  • A/Sexuality:Flamin' Asexual! YEAH, baby!!

Posted 04 September 2005 - 05:41 PM

I thought about it some more and decided that the most concise definition I can come up with is this:

Asexuality is defined by whether or not a person WANTS to have sex with others, whether or not they are physically able, and whether or not they engage in sex for other reasons despite their lack of desire.

-Greybird F.A.
Brought to you by:Posted Image
Greybird's Gallery of Death
and by

APositive!

#9 Xenon

Xenon

    AVENator

  • Members
  • 3,835 posts
  • Location:Lost In Space

Posted 04 September 2005 - 06:00 PM

People who "simply cant get any" are not asexual in my books.


I have a friend* who is the living embodiment of the taunt "What do you use for birth control, your personality?". I wouldn't call him asexual, since he presumably still wants it -- he just can't get it (and has moral objections to paying for it)...

* - Do I still call him my friend if I really don't like him? He and I are part of the same extended social group, most of the group activity being fantasy role-playing gaming. We've known each other for several years, and are friendly and pleasant towards each other, but deep down I really don't like him, I just tolerate his presence for the sake of the game.
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

Posted Image
Posted Image

#10 gbrd143

gbrd143

    Asexy Authoritay!

  • AVEN Members
  • 8,350 posts
  • Location:South Sound area, Washington state
  • A/Sexuality:Flamin' Asexual! YEAH, baby!!

Posted 04 September 2005 - 06:46 PM

* - Do I still call him my friend if I really don't like him? He and I are part of the same extended social group, most of the group activity being fantasy role-playing gaming. We've known each other for several years, and are friendly and pleasant towards each other, but deep down I really don't like him, I just tolerate his presence for the sake of the game.



I have a relationship category called "friendly aquaintance" which I reserve for people that I know, and don't actively DISlike, but who make me feel somewhat uncomfortable for whatever reason/s. I can enjoy their companionship for a while but it tires me out because I feel like I have to stay on guard around them.

-Greybird F.A.
Brought to you by:Posted Image
Greybird's Gallery of Death
and by

APositive!

#11 Xenon

Xenon

    AVENator

  • Members
  • 3,835 posts
  • Location:Lost In Space

Posted 18 October 2005 - 01:15 AM

I don't think that category would fit in this case, as I do have a mild dislike for this person. I'm not uncomfortable around him, I don't feel like I have to be on my guard when I'm around him... but I don't rally like him, and if he was to vanish off the face of the earth, I wouldn't miss him one bit... :)
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

Posted Image
Posted Image

#12 cijay

cijay

    AVENineffable

  • Members
  • 8,040 posts
  • Location:Edmonton, Canada.
  • A/Sexuality:asexual lesbian

Posted 19 October 2005 - 12:52 PM

well why does nobody questions about why everyone else seemed so sex-crazed? the desire of sex goes far beyond that of procreation needs to ensure human population right? :?


People do question but are a few reasons I don't "question" it. Mostly because I just simply don't give a shit how sexual a person is as long as I don't have to watch them or listen to them go on and on. I don't care if they have to take 10 minutes out of every hour to hunt down and hump someone (except of course that they'd be a very boring person and I doubt I'd spend much time with them) as long as they don't tell me about their hunting and conquests.

Second, I don't think it could be explained to me in a way I could understand anyway. Apparently sex feels good to a sexual person and the attaction is a powerful thing. How am I going to even understand that when I experience no attraction?
"If I were a ferret I'd be dead by now"

#13 Wild Seven

Wild Seven

    AVENator

  • AVEN Members
  • 3,807 posts
  • Pronouns:he / him / his
  • Location:home
  • A/Sexuality:Somewhat romantic, the rests, dunno. :P

Posted 19 October 2005 - 01:53 PM

Cijay, don't worry, be hippy :) Oh, I'd better stop with my agenda.
The thing is, I AM clearly able to experience sexual attraction, but still didn't understand those kinds of people. I guess other factors, as strenght of drive or desire, matter, not attraction solely.

#14 Tempesta

Tempesta

    Amoeba

  • AVEN Members
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • A/Sexuality:Asexual all the way. Mix with opposite sex-oriented and add a pinch of romance. Stir well.

Posted 19 October 2005 - 06:41 PM

To go back to the categories stated in the beginning of this thread, I'm missing something in your categories, msc. What about a "birth-a" who finds sex distasteful? There are enough people and posts on this forum to validate that option.
Those who mind don't matter.
Those who matter don't mind.

#15 cijay

cijay

    AVENineffable

  • Members
  • 8,040 posts
  • Location:Edmonton, Canada.
  • A/Sexuality:asexual lesbian

Posted 19 October 2005 - 11:17 PM

Exactly. That's why it's not worth the time to worry about all the different 'types' and 'classes'...or else start dividing it by hair colour or whether or not they wear glasses (brown/red and yes by the way).

Cijay, don't worry, be hippy :) Oh, I'd better stop with my agenda.

I'm hippy :D I'm a very hippy person.
"If I were a ferret I'd be dead by now"

#16 Tempesta

Tempesta

    Amoeba

  • AVEN Members
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • A/Sexuality:Asexual all the way. Mix with opposite sex-oriented and add a pinch of romance. Stir well.

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:01 PM

Exactly. That's why it's not worth the time to worry about all the different 'types' and 'classes'...or else start dividing it by hair colour or whether or not they wear glasses


Very true. Have to admit though that I'm addicted to polls, so I've voted everywhere :wink:. It is completely nonsense, all those polls, but o so fun!
Those who mind don't matter.
Those who matter don't mind.

#17 Wild Seven

Wild Seven

    AVENator

  • AVEN Members
  • 3,807 posts
  • Pronouns:he / him / his
  • Location:home
  • A/Sexuality:Somewhat romantic, the rests, dunno. :P

Posted 23 October 2005 - 02:49 PM

Cijay: Wow.. One more hippy person into the family ;) (you know, I like to think about anyone who sympathises by some kind with hippies as about members of the fam, since I have been doing this since my early teen years).. *sings and is happy that em has new member into fam*

*coughs little embarassed by new dividing classes* I always wanted to have purple hair and I regularly wear glasses, what 'bout'ya? ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users