Guest Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 To the people getting pissed off because sexual attraction isn't mentioned much in the article, have a cup of tea or soemthing and calm down lol. AVEN defines sexual attraction AS the desire for partnered sexual contact, and the article mentions that repeatedly.. so yeah, they are still referring to asexuality the way it's meant on AVEN. If you watch the documentary (A)sexual, you'll see that David Jay says repeatedly throughout it that he "wants love he just doesn't want sex" ..so yeah, that's what he meant by sexual attraction when he started AVEN, okay? so calm down. I prefer it explained that way anyway (just don't want sex lol). No one here can agree on what sexual attraction is (regardless of how AVEN defines it - and people argue about what even that means in an attempt to bend it to their will haha)..for the most part people just make it mean what they want it to mean, and base their asexuality on that, which to me is a huge step back for asexual awareness and understanding. How can anyone know what asexuality is when you have people identifying as asexual for all sorts of vastly different reasons, just because they base their asexuality around their own personal definition of sexual attraction? There is no official set definition anywhere, they are all different and mean different things to different people, so people have no choice but to make up their own definition if they don't want to agree with AVENs defintion .. it's just all just silly and confusing for everyone. I say, scrap the term sexual attraction from the face of the planet and we'll all be better off. Okay now that that's out of my system... I lost interest in the article at the "almost all asexuals experience sexual fluidity" part.. that's like saying almost all heterosexual people are open to the fact that tomorrow they may be fully homosexual or vice verses.. a homosexual person doesn't walk around telling everyone they are cocompletely happy being gay but tomorrow they may fully heterosexual and will be just as happy with that because hey, heterosexuality and homosexuality are fluid for almost everyone. True sexual fluidity is a lot rarer than that. I think that most cases of "asexual fluidity" especially were actually just confusion.. Actual asexual fluidity (transitioning from being asexual to heterosexual for example) is as rare as a truly heterosexual person transitioning to fully homosexual or vice verses. It's rare but it does happen. A lot of the time though it's more just confusion; the person assumes they are heterosexual until they meet the right person of the same gender and realize that's why they were never truly happy in previous relationships, they weren't with people of the gender matching their previously unrealized sexual orientation (I've met quite a few lesbian women who experienced this) So yeah, lame article, though I personally love that for the most part it leaves the ridiculous term 'sexual attraction' in the hypothetical dust. And I'm not going near the comments though I'd love to know what this terrifying blob is that everyone keeps mentioning haha. Link to post Share on other sites
dash Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Sometimes when people go on hormones for various reasons (either cis people or trans/nonbinary people), it affects not just their libido but also their orientation. I've heard from aces who it's happened to when they transitioned, and I assume there could also be cases where it's happened to cis people. So yes, rare, but does happen (but not necessarily the same or parallel to a cis person who was 100% straight becoming 100% gay, or even about 100% at all). More like "I wasn't interested in sex with anyone and now I'm on T and interested in sex with people, what is this? (distress)" Also not to be confused with "my asexuality was just a product of my gender dysphoria," I mean this in the sense of hormones having some effect on the brain. Link to post Share on other sites
Sleepy Skeleton Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 This article is bad. But it's Jezebel, so what did I expect? I especially hate this part: If this initially all seemed very fringe to me, it soon became more relatable than I anticipated. Lust doesn't leap out of all of us in the same way simply because it should on paper. My own desire fluctuates drastically depending on the person and the situation, the fantasy or the reality, the weather, the connection, the time of month. Yours probably does too. More of the same non-asexual "Everyone has goes through periods where they don't want sex! It's only natural! If everyone wanted sex all the time, we'd never stop!" crap that is repeated all the time. No, you ignorant people. Your experiences are NOT comparable to an asexual's. People act like most of us haven't spent plenty of time thinking about this. I feel like my intelligence is insulted every time someone assumes I'm a normal person just trying to be speshul. So yeah, that little bit there is what screwed this article in my opinion. [/rant] Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I think the "sometimes ppl don't want sex" part was mentioned so the sexuals can relate and not immediately find asexuality purposterous. Link to post Share on other sites
dash Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I think the "sometimes ppl don't want sex" part was mentioned so the sexuals can relate and not immediately find asexuality preposterous. I agree. But it also does send a misleading message about asexuals. It may make grey-A and demisexuals more relatable (maybe), but it doesn't really help IMO for understanding people who never want sex, or who are sex-averse. Also, "Lust doesn't leap out of all of us in the same way simply because it should on paper." What does this even mean? On what "paper" does is say that "lust should be the same for everyone"? "Should"?! Why would anyone ever think that people who lust all lust in the same way? Have they never known anyone whose sexual orientation or desires or needs were different from their own, in any way? A cursory look at humanity shows this to be absurd. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I think the paper is refering to books. But i agree. Link to post Share on other sites
dash Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I think the paper is refering to books. But i agree. OH OK I get it now, like how it "works" in fiction. Link to post Share on other sites
StormTheSorrow Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The article is about as good as you could expect from Jezebel. I mean it's basically like the worst website there is to be honest. It's run by Gawker, I'm surprised the title wasn't more clickbaity. As for the comments, I'm not surprised that there's a lot of skeptics. That's due to places like tumblr where everyone tries to out snowflake each other. Of course that's going to give the mainstream a warped perception. All they see are the people who think they deserve some sort of special treatment because they're edgy teenagers who spend too much time on the internet. Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEmily Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Did you see that there was a response/correction article?http://jezebel.com/interview-with-an-asexual-clarifying-what-i-got-wrong-a-1691087587 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.