Jump to content

Sex Favorable Ace Erasure


Spectre/Ex/Machina

Recommended Posts

Spectre/Ex/Machina

There is this blog post

http://petuniaparty.tumblr.com/post/92562009052/asexual-elitism-is-alive-and-well

It pretty much lays out the issue.

Give it a look and consideration, I would like your thoughts on the matter.

Since apparently the text is to hard to read in the link ,here is the CopyPaste ReDo version:

ASEXUAL ELITISM IS ALIVE AND WELL

This is a repost of my article “Asexual Elitism is Alive and Well” from Issue 25 in AVENues, put online in 2013 and written in 2012. Since writing this article I have found many asexual 101 and 201 spaces that don’t repeat the trends I identify here, but asexual elitism is also still pervasive in the ‘asexual’ tag on Tumblr so I thought it was worth a revisit. See end for comments on edits to this version.

As asexuals we’ve been fighting to get out of the closet of societal obscurity, but we might have lost a few of our own along the way. In the push to legitimize asexuality as a unique sexual orientation, some asexual people have become elitist as they police the barriers of who is in and outside of asexuality.

This topic has been discussed for years on the forums of the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (or AVEN), and as the user gbrd143 wrote in a pinned sticky on the Q&A forum, “this is an old subject which, for some reason. Just. Won’t. Die” (gbrd143). I’d like to propose a reason for this; perhaps asexual elitism is still alive and well, albeit in a manifestation we have not considered before.

Asexual elitism is an elitist attitude where some asexual people don’t consider others to be asexual because they participate in an activity that the asexual elitist thinks falls outside of the realm of asexuality. Notably, people who are not asexual also participate in this trend. What the activity is, be it masturbation, kissing, or sex, varies between asexual elitists (gbrd143).

AVEN, as a whole, does not participate in asexual elitism by defining asexuality on its website homepage as “a person who does not experience sexual attraction.” This definition allows an asexual person to engage in any type or amount of sexual behavior; their identity only relies on the fact that they are not sexually attracted.

On the AVEN forums, gbird143 expands on this by writing “n theory, a person could even earn their living as a prostitute and still be a perfectly valid asexual” (gbrd143). While it might seem like we have exposed and challenged asexual elitism, I will argue that in fact we have only changed its superficial appearance. We see this through a distinction between 'exposed’ and hidden asexual elitism, an exploration of what being sex-favourable is like for some asexual people, en explanation of how asexual elitism is used to protect some asexual people from sexuality, and by ultimately rejecting asexual elitism in all of its forms.

Asexual elitism can, at least, be 'exposed’ or hidden. Exposed asexual elitism has been described up to this point as the only form of asexual elitism. I describe it as exposed because it has been a topic of much discussion and some people believe we have it exposed it, challenged it, and no longer need to discuss it. This is an erroneous belief. Exposed elitism is an active rejection; one person will tell another person that they are not asexual because they participate in a 'sexual’ activity such as masturbating, kissing, or having sex (gbrd143). The asexual person’s sexual identity is overtly attacked and they are actively rejected from the asexual community.

Hidden asexual elitism is a passive rejection; asexuality is defined in a way where a person who self identifies as asexual finds that they do not fit under the definition of asexuality. This is done when academics and asexual people expand the definition of asexuality beyond sexual attraction, or suggest asexuality can be understood or marked by traits other than self-identification or sexual attraction. For example, this can occur when people say asexual people do not have sex or do not like sex. Although these are common traits within asexuality, they do not define asexuality and are not representative of all asexual people.

Hidden asexual elitism may leave some asexual people feeling as if they are rejected, but no one has actively kicked them out of the community. Academia and the asexual community frequently practice forms of hidden asexual elitism.

Inherent to nearly all conversations about asexuality, on AVEN and in scholarly journals, is the assumption that asexuals either do not want to have sex or will have sex if it is the most convenient option. One example of this is gbird143’s claim that a person is still asexual if they have sex under “extenuating circumstances”. These circumstances are described as possible of being “less than a death threat” and potentially as small as “the path of least resistance which will avoid an argument” (gbird143).

This is echoed in Mark Carrigan’s article, “How do you know you don’t like it if you haven’t tried it?”, when he describes asexual people’s personal interest in sex as either sex-averse or sex-neutral. There are only two categories. Carrigan claims that asexual people exist who specifically want to have sex, but the explanation for this is that they have sex for the intimacy it offers (14). In all of these articulations the asexual person who wants to have sex because it feels good is absent.

A person who wants to have sex, but is not sexually attracted to anyone, is a type of asexual that is largely ignored or, as shown in Carrigan’s explanation, written away as wanting to have sex for a reason other than the act itself. This kind of asexual person is so absent from conversations about asexuality that we might be led to believe that they don’t exist or are impossible. This is only an illusion created by asexual elitism.

In our quest to define asexual people as different from allosexual people (often reduced to their sexuality), many asexual people originally said that asexuals don’t have sex. This has since been exposed as asexual elitism and has been rectified to say that some asexual people will have sex because of hypothetical reason a, b, c, and so forth. Even though this list is hypothetically judgement free and exhaustive, my earlier quotes of gbird143 show that it assumes that an asexual people has sex as a compromise.

If the asexual sex worker could receive money for playing basketball, or if the asexual person in the relationship could avoid an argument or feel intimacy by going swimming, they wouldn’t choose to have sex. They typically have sex because the other person wants sex, and not because they want to. What about the asexual people that have sex because they orgasm, it feels good, and they actually want to? This is a perfectly legitimate reason to have sex; I’m sure many allosexual people would agree with me. So why is this reason suddenly suspect when it’s suggested by an asexual person?

We have not entirely left asexual elitism behind. While we may not outright say that asexual people who want sex because it feels good are not asexual, we fail to include their reasons in the list of reasons that asexual people would have sex. How we speak about asexuality inherently ignores this type of asexual. I believe that this is not incidental and occurs because even though we outwardly reject asexual elitism, the remnants of it remain in how we conceive the world and who we say exists in it.

Asexual elitism is not gone; it remains pervasive because it is difficult to isolate and because we have attached a stigma to being an asexual elitist. We don’t want to consider that we may in fact be one, but we encourage asexual elitism by failing to acknowledge specific reasons for having sex. Having sex because it feels good is an important reason to include or exclude; it defines an entire type of asexual people. If I may be so bold, I would say that these are the sex-favorable asexuals that should be added onto Carrigan’s defining list of asexual people’s interest in sex as either sex-neutral or sex-averse (14).

I have no illusions that I can speak for all sex-favorable asexuals, but I hope to better illuminate the lived situations of at least some of them. I have often described sex-favorable asexual people as having an itch they want to scratch. They cannot find the right tools for the job, but they’ll use whatever is available because it really itches and they don’t mind the tools at their disposal. They’ve accepted that there is no “right tool” and that they will never get the job done the typical way allosexual people get it done because they are not sexually attracted to their partner. In many cases, that’s fine. The sex is of a different kind, but not ruined.

Another type of sex-favorable asexual could have no metaphorical itch or sexual libido. They might enjoy sex simply because, like jogging, it feels good. If something feels good, why not do it?

Unfortunately, the ignored reasons for sex-favorable asexual people having sex might be unwelcome because we’ve heard them before and asexual people have made an effort to shut them out.

The reasons sex-favourable asexual people have sex sound similar to insulting responses to asexual people we’ve heard before from some allosexual people. “You’re missing out”, “have you tried it?”, and “you’ll change your mind” are just a few of the responses allosexual people have given to my asexuality. Since sex-favorable asexual people are equally capable of telling sex-neutral or sex-averse asexual people these things, they become the wolf in the sheep pasture.

Hidden asexual elitism stigmatizes and threatens to kick out sex-favorable asexual and protect the other asexual people from what seems to be a allosexual mindset. We must reject this.

Our earliest rejections of asexual elitism have taught us that having sex is not the line between allosexual and asexual; similarly, liking sex should not be the line between allosexual and asexual. Only when we are ready to be self-critical, and see who our language assumes to not exist, can we consider putting asexual elitism behind us.

Until then, we need to keep it in our message boards, in our wiki definitions pages, and in our articles, and expose it again and again as something that we will not condone. We can’t be too aggressive though; the intention is not to stigmatize asexual elitists in place of the asexuals they tried to exclude. We know what it’s like to be excluded from society. We must be careful to not repeat that trend.

Works Cited

Carrigan, Mark A. “How do you Know You Don’t Like it If you Haven’t Tried it?” Asexual Agency and the Sexual Assumption.” Sexual Minority Research in the New Millennium. Ed. Todd G. Morrison, Melanie A. Morrison, Mark A. Carrigan, and Daragh T. McDermott. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2012. 3-20. Print.

gbrd143. “What is “Asexual Elitism” and Why Does AVEN Discourage it?” Asexual Visibility Education Network.22 June 2010. Web. 14 June 2012.

The Asexual Visibility Education Network. Asexual Visibility Education Network. 2008. Web. 7 June 2012.

Edits to this version: Slight edits have been made to this version for clarity’s sake. I have opted not to include more examples and citations so as to not change the original work too much. I am currently in the process of writing other works on this topic and will include more sources in those texts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the font is too tiny and the contrast between text and background is too low. Why do people design websites where I have to use DevTools and fix their css myself?!

Okay, now I should read the article.

EDIT: I think I might have done that in the past. I'll try to be more self-conscious about it. Other than this, I don't have much to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
allrightalready

I think that the font is too tiny and the contrast between text and background is too low. Why do people design websites where I have to use DevTools and fix their css myself?!

Okay, now I should read the article.

EDIT: I think I might have done that in the past. I'll try to be more self-conscious about it. Other than this, I don't have much to say.

i cannot see it either and don't have the skills to fix it, sorry

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina

I fixed it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I am probably nitpicking, and if so I apologize in advance, here but I do have a criticism.

My complaint with the article is how narrowly they are insisting on defining asexuality. If you are going to argue against elitism and exclusion, shouldn't you use the most broad definition of asexuality possible? But they seem to be doing the opposite here:

AVEN, as a whole, does not participate in asexual elitism by defining asexuality on its website homepage as “a person who does not experience sexual attraction.” This definition allows an asexual person to engage in any type or amount of sexual behavior; their identity only relies on the fact that they are not sexually attracted.

Limiting it just to attraction is going to exclude people who experience attraction but not desire, as well as people still trying to sort out if they experience sexual attraction or if they are mistaking it for some other form of attraction.

Hidden asexual elitism is a passive rejection; asexuality is defined in a way where a person who self identifies as asexual finds that they do not fit under the definition of asexuality. This is done when academics and asexual people expand the definition of asexuality beyond sexual attraction, or suggest asexuality can be understood or marked by traits other than self-identification or sexual attraction. For example, this can occur when people say asexual people do not have sex or do not like sex. Although these are common traits within asexuality, they do not define asexuality and are not representative of all asexual people.

How is expanding the definition elitist? If anything that is opposite of elitism. It is broadening the definition and expanding those who can be called asexual making it a more inclusive term. If anything, wanting to narrow the definition to just sexual attraction is the actual elitist position.

Now I get that LIMITING it to just "people do not have sex or do not like sex" is elitist and reject that, but that is not expanding the definition. That is changing the definition entirely and trying to restrict it to that narrow definition. But EXPANDING it so that it explicitly includes those people in addition to those who do not experience sexual attraction is not the least bit elitist.

I feel that if anything, by limiting it to lack of sexual attraction they are doing exactly what they say they want to avoid as it could just as easily be said that lack of sexual attraction is a common trait within asexuality, it does not define asexuality and is not representative of all asexual people.

That said, I have no issue with self-identification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

seeing this article opens up my eyes to many posts on this forum that are, by this article's vantage, hidden asexual elitism. but before I can go about sharing this insight, I wonder if the line of thinking this article intruduces is a line of thinking that will be accepted to be true. if the community rejects this article, then I feel I must also reject this article....

people who would unbeknowingly be practicing hidden elitism views could inherently disbelieve the arguments presented by this article...

lost, I am unsure if the article is proposing that expanding the definition to be inclusive is elitism. I assumed it was talking about exclusive expansion, such as "asexuality is lack of attraction and also lack of activity"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina

Okay, I am probably nitpicking, and if so I apologize in advance, here but I do have a criticism.

My complaint with the article is how narrowly they are insisting on defining asexuality. If you are going to argue against elitism and exclusion, shouldn't you use the most broad definition of asexuality possible? But they seem to be doing the opposite here:

AVEN, as a whole, does not participate in asexual elitism by defining asexuality on its website homepage as “a person who does not experience sexual attraction.” This definition allows an asexual person to engage in any type or amount of sexual behavior; their identity only relies on the fact that they are not sexually attracted.

Limiting it just to attraction is going to exclude people who experience attraction but not desire, as well as people still trying to sort out if they experience sexual attraction or if they are mistaking it for some other form of attraction.

Hidden asexual elitism is a passive rejection; asexuality is defined in a way where a person who self identifies as asexual finds that they do not fit under the definition of asexuality. This is done when academics and asexual people expand the definition of asexuality beyond sexual attraction, or suggest asexuality can be understood or marked by traits other than self-identification or sexual attraction. For example, this can occur when people say asexual people do not have sex or do not like sex. Although these are common traits within asexuality, they do not define asexuality and are not representative of all asexual people.

How is expanding the definition elitist? If anything that is opposite of elitism. It is broadening the definition and expanding those who can be called asexual making it a more inclusive term. If anything, wanting to narrow the definition to just sexual attraction is the actual elitist position.

Now I get that LIMITING it to just "people do not have sex or do not like sex" is elitist and reject that, but that is not expanding the definition. That is changing the definition entirely and trying to restrict it to that narrow definition. But EXPANDING it so that it explicitly includes those people in addition to those who do not experience sexual attraction is not the least bit elitist.

I feel that if anything, by limiting it to lack of sexual attraction they are doing exactly what they say they want to avoid as it could just as easily be said that lack of sexual attraction is a common trait within asexuality, it does not define asexuality and is not representative of all asexual people.

That said, I have no issue with self-identification.

This is how I have come to approach the Asexual definition:

Asexual: lack of sexual attraction.

Asexual Spectrum: Lack of sexual attraction and/or lack of sexual desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lost, I am unsure if the article is proposing that expanding the definition to be inclusive is elitism. I assumed it was talking about exclusive expansion, such as "asexuality is lack of attraction and also lack of activity"

That is why I said I thought I might be nit-picking. I could see this as simply being a misunderstanding and that I was misconstruing what the author was saying. Again, if that is the case, I apologize.

Okay, I am probably nitpicking, and if so I apologize in advance, here but I do have a criticism.

My complaint with the article is how narrowly they are insisting on defining asexuality. If you are going to argue against elitism and exclusion, shouldn't you use the most broad definition of asexuality possible? But they seem to be doing the opposite here:

AVEN, as a whole, does not participate in asexual elitism by defining asexuality on its website homepage as a person who does not experience sexual attraction. This definition allows an asexual person to engage in any type or amount of sexual behavior; their identity only relies on the fact that they are not sexually attracted.

Limiting it just to attraction is going to exclude people who experience attraction but not desire, as well as people still trying to sort out if they experience sexual attraction or if they are mistaking it for some other form of attraction.

Hidden asexual elitism is a passive rejection; asexuality is defined in a way where a person who self identifies as asexual finds that they do not fit under the definition of asexuality. This is done when academics and asexual people expand the definition of asexuality beyond sexual attraction, or suggest asexuality can be understood or marked by traits other than self-identification or sexual attraction. For example, this can occur when people say asexual people do not have sex or do not like sex. Although these are common traits within asexuality, they do not define asexuality and are not representative of all asexual people.

How is expanding the definition elitist? If anything that is opposite of elitism. It is broadening the definition and expanding those who can be called asexual making it a more inclusive term. If anything, wanting to narrow the definition to just sexual attraction is the actual elitist position.

Now I get that LIMITING it to just "people do not have sex or do not like sex" is elitist and reject that, but that is not expanding the definition. That is changing the definition entirely and trying to restrict it to that narrow definition. But EXPANDING it so that it explicitly includes those people in addition to those who do not experience sexual attraction is not the least bit elitist.

I feel that if anything, by limiting it to lack of sexual attraction they are doing exactly what they say they want to avoid as it could just as easily be said that lack of sexual attraction is a common trait within asexuality, it does not define asexuality and is not representative of all asexual people.

That said, I have no issue with self-identification.

This is how I have come to approach the Asexual definition:

Asexual: lack of sexual attraction.

Asexual Spectrum: Lack of sexual attraction and/or lack of sexual desire.

That is fine. I disagree with that assessment, but seeing as I have been reading the sexual attraction thread in the census forum I know I am in the minority.

I just think that asexuality (as an orientation) should include both lack of attraction and/or lack of desire for partnered sex both.

Either way I am still an asexual, but I feel that limiting it to attraction only will exclude many people who *I feel* should be included. And isn't that the entire purpose of the post? Not excluding people who should be included in the definition.

*Note: I realize this is only my opinion. I realize I do not get to define the term alone. I realize I could be wrong. I acknowledge I could be wrong and you could be right but I just want to state what I think. Please don't take this as me challenging you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina

Your input is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

I just think that asexuality (as an orientation) should include both lack of attraction and lack of desire for partnered sex both.

someone who feels sexual attraction would be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or pansexual. are you sure you feel strongly that there is overlap between asexuality and the other orientations?

which makes me wonder, if seeking mutual exclusivity between two orientations is elitism..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Member54880

I think that manifestation of asexual elitism that erases the sex-favorable is usually unintentional, and could be remedied by being more careful with our word choices. When I talk about asexuality though, I'm afraid that I'm erasing some people by using only the "lack of sexual attraction" or "lack of sexual desire" definitions, but I generally don't know what the difference between "sexual attraction", and "sexual desire" are.

gbird's asexual elitism thread was ground-breaking for its time, because it was written during a time where there was a lot of identity policing going on at AVEN, with so many people then asserting that one can't have sex and be asexual.

So much of the discourse surrounding sex-favorable asexuals has only been around in about the past 2 years or so, and I see it discussed the most outside of AVEN, and more often in the asexual blogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that asexuality (as an orientation) should include both lack of attraction and lack of desire for partnered sex both.

someone who feels sexual attraction would be homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or pansexual. are you sure you feel strongly that there is overlap between asexuality and the other orientations?

which makes me wonder, if seeking mutual exclusivity between two orientations is elitism..

Sorry, that should have been an "and/or." I will edit my post.

Correct me if I am wrong, but depending on the source homosexuality isn't limited to just sexual attraction either.

From my point of view, by using the top two, you could easily have someone who meets both definitions. By the bottom one, not so much. Now conversely what are the definitions of asexuality? Some of them even mention behavior, which is something I reject.

All three definitions here mention desire. So my thought process here is, "does a person who has no desire for sex qualify as a sexual? Or is that more the definition of asexuality?" Not to mention I have seen posters here who identify as asexual and say that they experience sexual attraction in dreams and fantasy or to fictional characters but have no desire to have sex in reality.

In my opinion, and again it is just an opinion and could very well be wrong, if someone does not have any desire for sex, then they should be able to self identify as an asexual. I am not trying to say there should be no criteria, but that desire for partnered sex should be included as well as attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

I'm just trying to clarify. by including the and/or lack of desire clause, your argument is that if a heterosexual person doesn't desire partnered sex, they can identify as both heterosexual and asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina

Wouldn't that be making it about behavior again thus setting the conversation back by a bunch?

The whole "desire for partner sex" as a definition of sexual attraction always irks me cause everything I've learn about the subjects says something else. Especially when people define asexuality as a lack of desire for partnered sex because that is behavior and not orientation. All the things I know about orientation say that orientation is about gender and which you are sexually drawn to. Ok maybe Im going off on a tangent but it really bothers me.

That is why I differentiate tween orientation and spectrum.

So i see it this way, hopefully it helps.

Desire: Body says "right now".

Attraction: Body says "right now with this person(s) in particular".

Sex Favorable Ace: Body says "right now", Mind says "with the one we trust".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inherent to nearly all conversations about asexuality, on AVEN and in scholarly journals, is the assumption that asexuals either do not want to have sex or will have sex if it is the most convenient option.

Admittedly, this isn't always a correct assumption, and it would be general good practice to bear this in mind, but it would have been nice if the author has recognised that there's a good reason this assumption exists (Because it's usually true)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina
Inherent to nearly all conversations about asexuality, on AVEN and in scholarly journals, is the assumption that asexuals either do not want to have sex or will have sex if it is the most convenient option.

Admittedly, this isn't always a correct assumption, and it would be general good practice to bear this in mind, but it would have been nice if the author has recognised that there's a good reason this assumption exists (Because it's usually true)

Maybe for many aces but not the every single ace. This thread is here to focus on a group of aces that usually get push out of the conversation because we don't fit the narrative or assumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to clarify. by including the and/or lack of desire clause, your argument is that if a heterosexual person doesn't desire partnered sex, they can identify as both heterosexual and asexual.

I guess they could identify that way; though that sounds more like a problem with the definition of heterosexual than asexual to me.

That said, how does limiting it to sexual attraction fix this problem. Then you have people with sexual attractions and no sexual desire being called heterosexual. How can someone who doesn't desire sex with others ever be called "sexual?" You also have people with no sexual attractions but a strong desire to have sex with others being called asexuals.

Maybe this is a problem that solves itself? Who would choose to identify as both a heterosexual and an asexual? I think the majority of people will choose one or the other to identify with. I think people tend to self sort themselves the way that they believe to be best.

But if you disagree I respect that fully.

Wouldn't that be making it about behavior again thus setting the conversation back by a bunch?

The whole "desire for partner sex" as a definition of sexual attraction always irks me cause everything I've learn about the subjects says something else. Especially when people define asexuality as a lack of desire for partnered sex because that is behavior and not orientation. All the things I know about orientation say that orientation is about gender and which you are sexually drawn to. Ok maybe Im going off on a tangent but it really bothers me.

That is why I differentiate tween orientation and spectrum.

So i see it this way, hopefully it helps.

Desire: Body says "right now".

Attraction: Body says "right now with this person(s) in particular".

Sex Favorable Ace: Body says "right now", Mind says "with the one we trust".

I don't think desire is the same thing as behavior. I see desire as being purely mental.

I am on a diet, and I am desiring a cookie right now. That does not mean I am going to go in there and get a cookie...damn it now I am getting hungry. ^_^

To me

  • Desire: I want to have sex right now with another person!
  • Attraction: Not that one, not that one, ohhh that one!!! They are hot!
  • Sex Favorable Ace 1(desire with no attraction): I want to have sex right now, but I have no preference
  • Sex Favorable Ace 2(attraction with no desire): Oh that person is just my type! If she/he/xe were to ask me I wouldn't mind having sex with them but I am just as happy going without.

But its cool if you disagree. I fully respect your opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I learn about asexuality as a concept, the more I find that it is irrelevant. It's a useful keyword to find this community; But it's not a useful word to talk about things. You can't talk about asexuals in general because the concept is just too broad and not well enough defined. There's not even really much that connects the various types of asexuals and people on the asexual spectrum. Every asexual on this community is, in terms of sexuality, as different from my girlfriend as any sexual would be. The thing that this community seems to be about, which connects the people here, is a rejection of a certain "everyone must like sex" mentality, not about sexual orientation. So I don't see why we must focus so much on the definition of asexuality. It's just not very relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Inherent to nearly all conversations about asexuality, on AVEN and in scholarly journals, is the assumption that asexuals either do not want to have sex or will have sex if it is the most convenient option.

Admittedly, this isn't always a correct assumption, and it would be general good practice to bear this in mind, but it would have been nice if the author has recognised that there's a good reason this assumption exists (Because it's usually true)

Maybe for many aces but not the every single ace. This thread is here to focus on a group of aces that usually get push out of the conversation because we don't fit the narrative or assumption.

I recognise that. (Just realised, fool that I am, that the author is you) My point is that as it stands you infer that this assumption is always down to elitist thinking - in other words, "I'm asexual, you're not", when it could quite simply be absent-mindedness. I say "infer", because it's not outright stated. It would be better then to recognise that this may be true for many if not most asexuals, and hence is not an unreasonable assumption, nevertheless it's better to try and avoid making that assumption because it's not true for all asexuals. This strengthens your conclusion that we could do with being a bit more aware of ourselves

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina

I did not write the tumblr post in my OP, that was someone else. I merely posted it to raise awareness and start a conversation. I take no credit for that article/blog post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, clearly 36 hours without sleep are taking their toll. Now Hobbes m'boy, what have you learned today

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina

I was contemplating whether Sex Favorable Aces should have their own spaces to speak on this site but I need to engage more Sex/favs before I conclude anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forever Dreaming

I was contemplating whether Sex Favorable Aces should have their own spaces to speak on this site but I need to engage more Sex/favs before I conclude anything.

I'm new here, and I'm finding that I'm being very careful with what I say. I'm one of those sex-favourable aces mentioned in the OP that sometimes has sex just because it's a fun thing to do. In the right frame of mind, it's like making music.

But this site seems to have a lot of people who are...well, disgusted by even the mention of sex. So maybe we need our own place to chat so we don't frighten people!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina

There is that lingering feeling like you experience is not really welcomed cause its divergent from most folks on here. It can be unsettling.

I just hope more SexFavs see this tread and weigh in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was contemplating whether Sex Favorable Aces should have their own spaces to speak on this site but I need to engage more Sex/favs before I conclude anything.

I'm new here, and I'm finding that I'm being very careful with what I say. I'm one of those sex-favourable aces mentioned in the OP that sometimes has sex just because it's a fun thing to do. In the right frame of mind, it's like making music.

But this site seems to have a lot of people who are...well, disgusted by even the mention of sex. So maybe we need our own place to chat so we don't frighten people!

It's a recurring problem, though one that is noticed by a lot of members here, if that's of any comfort. In the meantime you might find that you relate to some of the stuff in the Grey Area

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some parts of the article, describe pretty well how i've felt towards asexuality, and how sometimes i still feel. Everything is quite confusing, still, and pretty new, and maybe it comes froom that, from the insecurity of discovering something new you didn't even thought about. I think the Gray Area is a good space to talk about sex related issues, and i don't think i can say any more about the article since i'm quite new to the community. I feel identified with it, but i can't say much more.

My ""desire"" of partened sex could be described like a food that when you eat it, tastes good, you enjoy it everytime you have it but isn't like "i would give anything but a piece of _______" or isn't your favorite part of the meal either, but someday can be like, "mmmm it's been long since last i ate _____ maybe i'd had some" or can be "X really wants to eat that, so it could be a good oportunity to have ______ for dinner". It's like everything is very rational, it's not my body screaming "i need to eat ________ now"

I do desire for sexual pleasure, but I only desire for the pleasure itselft, so i don't thank that would enter in the category of "sexual desire" (because i'm assuming we're talking mainly about partened sex, but i still tend to include masturbation when sex comes to play, and i think most people when mention sex, are talking about sex with someone else, not masturbation.) I desire it because it makes me physically to feel good, just like a massage can make you feel good, or a relaxing bath. I feel it to be more like a rational choice/wish, actually.

While I do think the desire of having partened sex is an allosexual trait (?, i think it different if the desire of having partened sex arises from some kind of rationl thought like "it gives me physical pleasure", "it can be fun"....and i think those are enough reasons for someone to like something, but it's different if the desire would come like, from within, that can't be explained, or a desire that comes from a need you feel even though it can't be explained (this is a personal conclusion). And i think this could be applied to allosexuals also, but right now i don't feel that i have the correct words to phrase it so i'll just leave it there.

The difference between behavior/interest and desire, the former is rational the latter is not, or at least, that depends how you define it, and i think there is where the problem arises, because desire can have many different connotations. For example, as i've said, i would say that i "desire" having sex with my partner, we have a long distance relationship so we only have sex when we see each other, but during those month that we're separated, i miss him, i can satisfy myself with the perspective of having sex, but i don't desire, i don't crave it, i'm perfectly fine, my body doesn't feel that absence, but he does, he desire it, but his desire is different in nature to my desire. And i think, maybe when definitions point out desire, are talking about the latter, not about the desire that i can experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was contemplating whether Sex Favorable Aces should have their own spaces to speak on this site but I need to engage more Sex/favs before I conclude anything.

I'm new here, and I'm finding that I'm being very careful with what I say. I'm one of those sex-favourable aces mentioned in the OP that sometimes has sex just because it's a fun thing to do. In the right frame of mind, it's like making music.

But this site seems to have a lot of people who are...well, disgusted by even the mention of sex. So maybe we need our own place to chat so we don't frighten people!

There are people on the site that are not comfortable talking about sex, however that doesn't stop you from talking about it.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't comment on other people threads, however if you want to discuss a topic that you feel might make sex-repulsed people uncomfortable, it might be worth creating your own thread, and warning people at the start. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina

Soooo ...ummm...will sex-favorable aces be getting accommodations too? or.............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it to be more like a rational choice/wish, actually.

This, totally. I'm sex-neutral-to-sex-favorable. Looking back on my sexual life, I see that my approach has always been a sort of rational weighing of the options -- well, yeah, sex might be pleasant, but my partner's tired, or was recently sick, or had a headache earlier, or I'd rather get the kitchen clean for tomorrow, so... nahhh.

What took 20-odd years to get through to me is that this is unusual! Sexual people have a sex drive that tells them, Screw the kitchen, I'll sleep when I'm dead, I WANT YOU, now! It was finally realizing this, via AVEN, that got me to realize that I'm on the asexual spectrum -- OK with sex, just lacking an inherent drive for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo ...ummm...will sex-favorable aces be getting accommodations too? or.............

I'm not quite sure what you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...