Jump to content

Mods


Recommended Posts

I have absolutely no idea who to talk to or where to put this but I figured this would get someone's attention. Is there any way to go about getting the def of "sexual attraction" on AVEN corrected? I have no idea how the screw up happened, I can only assume it was some new generation that came in after so many of us "olden folk" left, but leave it to asexuals to think sexual attraction and sexual desire are the same thing since they don't generally experience either and wouldn't know. So what, can I just appeal to common sense or does there need to be a mod vote, maybe a community majority? I'm super disappointed by this given that it was settled without much controversy like 10 years ago. Unfortunately the AVEN archive doesn't seem to go back that far and I wasn't able to find the original discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no idea who to talk to or where to put this but I figured this would get someone's attention. Is there any way to go about getting the def of "sexual attraction" on AVEN corrected? I have no idea how the screw up happened, I can only assume it was some new generation that came in after so many of us "olden folk" left, but leave it to asexuals to think sexual attraction and sexual desire are the same thing since they don't generally experience either and wouldn't know. So what, can I just appeal to common sense or does there need to be a mod vote, maybe a community majority? I'm super disappointed by this given that it was settled without much controversy like 10 years ago. Unfortunately the AVEN archive doesn't seem to go back that far and I wasn't able to find the original discussion.

What would you like the definition to be, exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't remember the original agreed upon wording, it was something like "sexual attraction - an innate way of thinking or seeing someone in a sexual context". And then I believe the examples were things like picturing them naked or having sexual fantasies, perhaps even some level of physical sexual reaction. "Wanting to have sex" was never part of it. Sexual desire is the interest in sexual intimacy with another. That is wanting to have sex. You don't necessarily need one to have the other. This was not controversial when I first posted it a decade ago. Most sexual people I've spoken with, if they're the sort for any level of self-examination, largely agree with the separation, which is how it came to be in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By physical sexual reaction, you mean physical arousal?

There is currently a 50 or so page thread on defining sexual attraction. It's kind of a hot controversial topic, because sexuals and asexuals alike cannot seem to pin down a single definition. I've asked plenty of people to define it (sexuals) and no one ever gives me the same definition twice. The thread shows how asexuals and sexuals on here can't agree either. So, perhaps 10 years ago it wasn't a controversial topic, but today it certainly is. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabger, there have been umpteen threads about definitions just in the last year, let alone before that. Obviously, that definition is not yet settled, so going back to a ten-year-old definition probably isn't logical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

While I don't remember the original agreed upon wording, it was something like "sexual attraction - an innate way of thinking or seeing someone in a sexual context". And then I believe the examples were things like picturing them naked or having sexual fantasies, perhaps even some level of physical sexual reaction. "Wanting to have sex" was never part of it. Sexual desire is the interest in sexual intimacy with another. That is wanting to have sex. You don't necessarily need one to have the other. This was not controversial when I first posted it a decade ago. Most sexual people I've spoken with, if they're the sort for any level of self-examination, largely agree with the separation, which is how it came to be in the first place.

I agree that what you said would be considered as sexual attraction by most people outside of AVEN, and that sexual attraction and sexual desire are separate things. This is why I'm one of the hardcore "desirists" who think asexuality should be defined by lack of an innate desire for partnered sex. Asexuals can find people sexy, have sexual fantasies, be aroused by attractive people, but they don't want to have sex with people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite logical that the 10 year old post is still relevant because I still talk to people about it and it still holds true. Before that, everyone on the boards tended to agree that asexuals don't experience sexual attraction, but no one could actually define what 'sexual attraction' was. My ex, a sexual, and I spent damn near a year interviewing sexuals and asexuals about it, picking apart their answers, asking more questions, etc. by the time I posted our hypothesized definitions (it was in draft form), and there was an agreement on the terms when we discussed it here. The only controversy at all was when I claimed there was more than one type of sexual attraction, primary and contingent (otherwise known as "secondary" after a screw up when someone posted it on wiki without permission). Most people agreed with me but a few people didn't. Although, my response of "how would an asexual person know when this is what sexual people are telling me" was never answered.

Even if you don't like the way I worded it, it doesn't change the fact that attraction and desire are different. The majority of sexual people I've discussed this with, if they are at any level self-reflective, acknowledge that there is a difference between sexual desire and sexual attraction, even if they don't word their definitions exactly the same. I actually just spoke to a sexual male friend of mine about this less than a month ago and he said it made total sense to him. He also said that he personally found primary sexual attraction annoying and that he only experienced sexual desire with his wife, whom he was contingently sexually attracted to. It was an interesting conversation. I've had a few people tell me they don't care and aren't interested in talking about it, but I've never had a sexual person that was interested in talking about it claim I was wrong and that they were the same thing. It's absurd to assume someone automatically wants to have sex with someone just because they find them sexually attractive. My ex was actually insulted when I told her what was going for the def now a days.

My argument isn't "hey, use my def!!" as I already said I couldn't remember the original wording, and it was a draft after all. My disagreement is claiming two clearly separate things are the same thing. It doesn't make any sense.

Starrynight, I agree, I've always though the definition of asexuality itself was rather limited, though I understand the reasoning is that simple is easier for people to grasp, on average. I had posted a more complex def of asexuality when I posted everything else, which was more inclusive, but while I don't recall exactly what it was, it was kind of hard to follow, I openly admitted. Now, when I'm describing asexuality to people I'll use the AVEN def but add "in general" or something like that, but if someone wants a more in-depth conversation I'll say something like an asexual is someone that doesn't or rarely experiences sexual attraction OR sexual desire; that grey-asexuals may experience sexual attraction OR sexual desire but never or rarely at the same time; and that a sexual person is capable of experiencing sexual attraction and sexual desire separately and together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with changing the definition though is that people need to agree on a definition. And there have been over 100 pages of arguing over what the definition of "sexual attraction" is just in the time I have been here...

And yes, I tend to see them separate as well. Which is why I prefer the definition of "does not experience sexual attraction and/or no innate desire for partnered sexual activity" or something along those lines. But, that definition also has agreement/disagreement with it. *shrug* The whole definition argument is one I have personally backed out of, because there doesn't seem to be an end to it, with sexuals and asexuals on either side. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go with this new definition, because the AVEN frontpage one did mess me up. Only when they brought up partnered sex in the Qand A could I relate. I near we left here, and certainly didn't come in because it was inviting to me; I'm just curious and masochistic enough to read up on something after being dissapointed. And, there are the kinks (literally, and of which masochism is not one.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

no innate desire for partnered sexual activity

I wish we could just settle on that definition. It specifies everything to me: the innateness of not wanting partnered sex. But although some of us have brought that up in a number of threads, not everyone likes it. It seems sometimes that the farther those threads go, the less we can agree on. Perhaps that's just exemplary of the human need to be individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...