The problem of sexual fluidity

[Tazoz]

No, I do understand the point you were trying to make. I've already addressed that. I mentioned people are going to invalidate you no matter what. They are using fluidity as an excuse but turning this whole thing on people who are actually fluid is going to help how? This is like the unassailable asexual thing. You don't want people to question your asexuality so people with fluid orientations should do what? Pretend that it's not? Shut up and go away/? The problem is not them. The problem is people not believing in asexuality. They will always find a way to point out "flaws". They'll believe in anything not to believe in you.

I understand now and I'm sorry it took me so long to get it. We can't approach the issue without taking into account those that depend on fluidity and I made a huge mistake when I failed to see how there are two sides to this story and the problem with fluidity goes both ways. I hope this discussion really did highlight both sides of the story and our need to accept others who don't fit into our own limited perspective and the boundaries of what we understand and know. We all struggle with our own issues, but it is important to not forget to see through the eyes of others and share our and their burden and be there for each other when needed. :)

[Howard]

The way I had it explained to me was that asexuality is very fluid in terms of behavior. Just about everyone, no matter their true sexual orientation, acts like an asexual from time to time, but the same can not be said about other sexual behaviour.

I can think of several examples. A straight person may turn down sex with the opposite sex to watch the game but it is unlikely the person has sex with the sans gendre for the same person. A gay man, single, may be aware of some woman's attraction for him but he will wait for a man.

As such, may be not in terms of orientation, but in terms of behaviour, asexuality is very fluid because it is a universal behaviour.

[Prairie]

Howard, I thought that being asexual was not desiring sex with people, that is, not directly an action, but subjective in wanting to (for sexual reasons, as opposed to doing so to please the other person). Put another way, at best sex for an asexual is like any other activity that one could do but with no compelling reason to do so, as opposed to say a hobby where one is drawn to engage it regularly entirely for personal satisfaction.

The way you describe it, it's entirely talking about whether someone takes the action of trying to bring about sex whenever there is anyone basically compatible with themselves in the vicinity, where not doing this is asexuality. Naturally this will be the norm for most almost everyone, due to all the negative consequences of following one's impulse without regard for effects on others. To define asexuality this way seems to almost make it meaningless. Was this not how you meant it?

[Howard]

You follow me part of the way, Prairie. I don't beleive the orientation of asexuality is fluid, but acting like an asexual is. People do it all the time only to go back to their orientation when the time is appropriate. You could call it meaningless, but I think scientists call it fluid, because it's a behavior that changes according to its surrounding, much like a liquid adapting to its réceptacle.

[Ricecream-man]

Howard, sorry but that's not how it works. Under that explanation there is no reason for the label of asexuality.

It's an orientation based on how you view and approach sex and sexual attraction as a whole.

If we use your definition of asexual then I'm vegetarian everytime I turn down meat and vegan every time I eat a salad. Or I become Muslim anytime I act in a way that follow their religious texts or you're partially Jewish/Christian if you get circumcised. That's not how it works at all.

[Tarfeather]

One thing I've noticed is that people often try to reassure others about their sexuality by explaining that asexuality and romantic orientations are fluid. I believe that we are making a huge mistake by using the term sexual fluidity in such a way.

I fully agree that such things are not fluid. However, that doesn't mean they are necessarily constant throughout your entire life, either. It's not scientifically proven that drastic changes can not happen; However, changing one's sexual orientation (really changing it, not just re-evaluating what was always there) should be as significant as a socially incompetent introvert turning into a charming extrovert, or as a person who always had trouble with maths suddenly excelling at it. In other words, it should be incredibly rare.

It's possible you don't really fall under any of the labels. If you're not so heterosexual that you can't with some certainty say that you will never have a desire to have sex with someone of the same sex, you're probably not actually heterosexual. If you're not so aromantic that you can't with some certainty say that you'll never have a crush on anyone, you're probably not aromantic. Your experience will be entirely different from someone who indeed is heterosexual/aromantic/etc., and putting yourself under that label would harm everyone who uses that label, as people will now be confused as to what the label actually means.

That said, I can understand why someone would want to say "I'm fluid asexual/sexual" or something along those lines. Sometimes it's just a quick way to describe yourself. However, that only works as long as everyone is aware that this "fluidity" does *not* refer to having multiple orientations at once, or switching between these orientations. It actually means that none of these orientations describe you, and that you're fundamentally different from those who can be described with such labels.

[Prairie]

You follow me part of the way, Prairie. I don't beleive the orientation of asexuality is fluid, but acting like an asexual is. People do it all the time only to go back to their orientation when the time is appropriate. You could call it meaningless, but I think scientists call it fluid, because it's a behavior that changes according to its surrounding, much like a liquid adapting to its réceptacle.

I see what you're saying. Those times I see food but don't eat it, I'm acting like an anorexic/someone fasting. When I'm near a bed but don't choose to sleep, I'm acting like an insomniac. When there are people somewhere near and I'm not interacting, I'm acting like an antisocial person.

I called these descriptions meaningless in that they don't add any insight. I'm not eating food right now. Each day I eat plenty of food, but I'm just not hungry right now. That I'm acting like an anorexic/someone fasting doesn't give any insight (if anything, it confuses things because I don't resist eating when I'm sufficiently hungry, and am not avoiding all food as part of some health plan).

As I understand it, someone who is asexual doesn't desire sex with people, not just some of the time, but all of the time. It's not like someone who does desire sex only some of the time who just isn't desiring it at the moment. The asexuality part doesn't refer to their actions at any given moment, because if it did everyone would be asexual most of the time, and again that would become a meaningless term since it doesn't add anything useful.

I think the asexuality label isn't just to classify behavior in some arbitrary way, it's to imply that the reason someone doesn't ever desire sex is that there is something in their basic makeup that just isn't wired that way, rather than it just being the current circumstances. Society tends to want people to act certain ways, and when they differ and people are uncomfortable with it, they want some kind of explanation that is more than a person merely choosing to do something. Biological/scientific explanations tend to be satisfying for a good portion of society, so I think that asexuality subscribes to something along these lines.

[Howard]

That asexual behavior is more fluid than sexual behavior is not a great discovery and I hope no one wins a prize for it. I still wouldn't call it meaningless because it explains, amongst other things, why people generaly turn down sex that's not according to their orientation. Of course there are exceptions, like curiosity or pleasing someone, and that's sexual fluidity, but it's rarer, hence less fluid. Maybe the concept of asexual\sexual fluidity was meant for psych geeks who want to put words on every little human behavior.

[Ricecream-man]

That asexual behavior is more fluid than sexual behavior is not a great discovery and I hope no one wins a prize for it. I still wouldn't call it meaningless because it explains, amongst other things, why people generaly turn down sex that's not according to their orientation. Of course there are exceptions, like curiosity or pleasing someone, and that's sexual fluidity, but it's rarer, hence less fluid. Maybe the concept of asexual\sexual fluidity was meant for psych geeks who want to put words on every little human behavior.

It seems like you've ignored everything that everyone else has been saying. What you're saying isn't what sexual fluidity is about. Action =/= orientation

[Cheerful]

Again, your sexual orientation is static - Hetero, Homo, Bi or Asexual - we are born this way, and this does not change.

The fluid aspect would be those romantic labels, and those are dependent upon how you feel about interacting with others. Those can change for any number of reasons, but your orientation remains constant.

This over-analyzing has led to a lot of confusion. An Asexual does not have any desire for partnered sex, and there are no part-time Asexuals. If you have this desire to any degree, you are Sexual.

[Howard]

I fully understand the previous posts, as well as Jezebel's article, discusses fluidity in terms of sexual orientation. What I am saying is that the one time I heard of asexual\sexual fluidity was in terms of behavior (acting like), not orientation (actualy being). I think what I am saying is sound because the info is from my current therapist. I disagree that being asexual is fluid (I don't beleive orientation changes easily), but I agree that acting like an asexual is more common than acting like an allosexual one isn't (behaviour changes easily). One may not be a vegan for eating a salad, but he's definetely eating a vegan meal. One could say a jewish prayer even if christian. I apologies that people feel ignored because I disagree.

[Prairie]

One may not be a vegan for eating a salad, but he's definetely eating a vegan meal.

This is such a trivial point to make. Literally, everything in the world is asexual except for having sex with someone because you have a desire to. Driving a car? Asexual. Watching TV? Asexual. Grocery shopping? Asexual.

I think that your framing uses a shallow definition of asexuality. Asexual people have all those same moments doing those things that don't involve sex, but during those they are not being asexual. It's not any action by an asexual that is an asexual action, it's the lack of impulse towards sex with someone that is asexual. There's no one moment that it's lacking that you could pin down and say "see, this sexual also lacks the impulse at this moment, so they're bein asexual!" It's the entire picture.

As for you simply parroting what someone considered an expert as told you, for me that's the fallacy of authority. I'm personally moved by argument, not authority.

[R_1]

Again, your sexual orientation is static - Hetero, Homo, Bi or Asexual - we are born this way, and this does not change.

The fluid aspect would be those romantic labels, and those are dependent upon how you feel about interacting with others. Those can change for any number of reasons, but your orientation remains constant.

This over-analyzing has led to a lot of confusion. An Asexual does not have any desire for partnered sex, and there are no part-time Asexuals. If you have this desire to any degree, you are Sexual.

For most people, it doesn't change too much and even if it does, it's irrelevant. However, this does not apply to some people like me who used to be sexual, and as someone who used to be sexual, I find the idea that everyone is born that way offensive because it simply cannot apply to people like me. You want to believe I am a heterosexual now, be my guest, but I'll just remind you over time that I simply haven't had those feelings after the shift with the exception of post-surgeries which frankly doesn't count.