Completing "The Practical Definition of Sexuality" ...

[AW10]

Most of the posts I have lately been posting on this forum have been building up to the system "The Practical Definition of Sexuality". The system is nearly complete and it is already a masterpiece. I am still working on some parts of the system, but I am finally ready to consider everyone's suggestions regarding the system. By suggestions I mean suggestions on how to improve it, not whether or not the definitions are correct. I am not aiming at correct, I am aiming at correct enough to be effectively used in everyday life. Hope I can get desired suggestions:

http://aw10-sandbox.wikia.com/wiki/The_Practical_Definition_of_Sexuality

EDIT: This thread has nothing to do with theorical definition, but practical definition. I am looking for something pragmatic here. The other thread, "Asexuality has nothing to do with sexual attraction", is representation of how I used to be when I desired theory with little to no practical application.

[touching-not-so-much]

I'd like to note something but I'm not sure if here or your Nothing to Do With Asexuality thread is better. I guess I'll post there and try to link to my post here. But basically, I'm in a FaceBook asexuality group (I know some other AVEN members are as well) and that group's idea of asexuality is exactly the opposite of your other thread - asexuality is ONLY about sexual attraction, not whether you desire sex. WUT.

Full post in: Asexuality has nothing to do with sexual attraction

[AW10]

I'd like to note something but I'm not sure if here or your Nothing to Do With Asexuality thread is better. I guess I'll post there and try to link to my post here. But basically, I'm in a FaceBook asexuality group (I know some other AVEN members are as well) and that group's idea of asexuality is exactly the opposite of your other thread - asexuality is ONLY about sexual attraction, not whether you desire sex. WUT.

Full post in: Asexuality has nothing to do with sexual attraction

I think that attraction and want are related, so both definitions are valid to some extent. To explain what I mean, here is what I have written before, but not in this forum:

I would say that attraction is actually manifestation of a want that occurs only when object of want is present, and want is feeling for something you lack. Desire on the other hand is the craving to apprehend your want, so desire does not mean possession but intention. In other words, upon thinking about it, I concluded that desire is a feeling while attraction is emotion.

Also, if we are going to go further, if attraction between two people is mutual, then there exist connection between those two people, but even if there exist connection between those two people, if they do not have relationship, if they do not have mutual desire, connection means nothing. Going even further, what therefore sustains relationship is desire, not attraction.

[WhenSummersGone]

I'd like to note something but I'm not sure if here or your Nothing to Do With Asexuality thread is better. I guess I'll post there and try to link to my post here. But basically, I'm in a FaceBook asexuality group (I know some other AVEN members are as well) and that group's idea of asexuality is exactly the opposite of your other thread - asexuality is ONLY about sexual attraction, not whether you desire sex. WUT.

Full post in: Asexuality has nothing to do with sexual attraction

Actually there's a lot of people on here, myself included, who support the desire based definition. I find it hard to understand someone who wants sex or to seek out sex and calls themselves asexual.

[Salted Karamel]

For what it's worth I support the and/or definition. As in an asexual person is someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction and/or does not desire partnered sex, or whatever exact wording of those ideas the kids are using these days.

I really wish these threads wouldn't keep popping up in different places so that I need to repeat myself and everyone needs to have the same arguments over and over again, though. This isn't an "if mom says no I'll just go and ask dad" situation; AVEN seems to want to shop around until it gets the right combination of thread participants sharing a combination of views that pleases them so that a majority consensus can be claimed.

It's tiresome enough that anyone wants to try to change a definition that has been used for years by popular current vote. It's even more tiresome that there are people who basically campaign the idea through this forum 24/7 until they convince enough people to agree with it. I am so, so, so tired of this discussion. And tired of the campaigning.

[AW10]

For what it's worth I support the and/or definition. As in an asexual person is someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction and/or does not desire partnered sex, or whatever exact wording of those ideas the kids are using these days.

I really wish these threads wouldn't keep popping up in different places so that I need to repeat myself and everyone needs to have the same arguments over and over again, though. This isn't an "if mom says no I'll just go and ask dad" situation; AVEN seems to want to shop around until it gets the right combination of thread participants sharing a combination of views that pleases them so that a majority consensus can be claimed.

It's tiresome enough that anyone wants to try to change a definition that has been used for years by popular current vote. It's even more tiresome that there are people who basically campaign the idea through this forum 24/7 until they convince enough people to agree with it. I am so, so, so tired of this discussion. And tired of the campaigning.

This thread has nothing to do with theorical definition, but practical definition. I am looking for something pragmatic here. The other thread, "Asexuality has nothing to do with sexual attraction", is representation of how I used to be when I desired theory with little to no practical application.

[nanogretchen4]

By practical definition do you mean that it should communicate some useful information to potential partners about whether you have compatible sexual orientations? The type of asexuals who don't desire sex with anyone ever are incompatible with sexuals and compatible with each other. The type of asexuals who desire sex but lack some hard to define quality called attraction are compatible with sexuals and incompatible with the type of asexuals who don't desire sex. Using the same sexual orientation label for these two different and sexually incompatible groups of people seems a bit impractical.

[AW10]

By practical definition do you mean that it should communicate some useful information to potential partners about whether you have compatible sexual orientations? The type of asexuals who don't desire sex with anyone ever are incompatible with sexuals and compatible with each other. The type of asexuals who desire sex but lack some hard to define quality called attraction are compatible with sexuals and incompatible with the type of asexuals who don't desire sex. Using the same sexual orientation label for these two different and sexually incompatible groups of people seems a bit impractical.

Honestly, I do not know my idea will work, I will see when I exapand the label descriptions. However, I am confident that, once I exapand the descriptions, if you pick a label from each of the three label systems, like I did in my AVEN signature, you will know how to achieve desired realationships with other people. Being on AVEN has learned me that sexuality is really nothing about sex. I am redefining sexuality in order to create a guide for finding compatibile life partner. All labels are defined, I just have to make them understandable by someone other than me.

[Salted Karamel]

By practical definition do you mean that it should communicate some useful information to potential partners about whether you have compatible sexual orientations? The type of asexuals who don't desire sex with anyone ever are incompatible with sexuals and compatible with each other. The type of asexuals who desire sex but lack some hard to define quality called attraction are compatible with sexuals and incompatible with the type of asexuals who don't desire sex. Using the same sexual orientation label for these two different and sexually incompatible groups of people seems a bit impractical.

Honestly, I do not know my idea will work, I will see when I exapand the label descriptions. However, I am confident that, once I exapand the descriptions, if you pick a label from each of the three label systems, like I did in my AVEN signature, you will know how to achieve desired realationships with other people. Being on AVEN has learned me that sexuality is really nothing about sex. I am redefining sexuality in order to create a guide for finding compatibile life partner. All labels are defined, I just have to make them understandable by someone other than me.

Practically speaking, I think your distinctions are too convoluted to make enough sense to be useful to anyone.

[Wenderbread]

Definition discussions aside, I don't know if I'm the only one, but I'm baffled by the "sexual behaviors" section. I think my issue is that the definitions for the different behaviors include so much vague wording, it's difficult for me to follow. What is "psyche" in this context, and what does "strengthening it" mean? I'm also a little lost with the word "unity" here.

I like the idea of something like this. It's like a "choose your own adventure" story, but for figuring out sexuality. Cool idea.

[AW10]

Definition discussions aside, I don't know if I'm the only one, but I'm baffled by the "sexual behaviors" section. I think my issue is that the definitions for the different behaviors include so much vague wording, it's difficult for me to follow. What is "psyche" in this context, and what does "strengthening it" mean? I'm also a little lost with the word "unity" here.

I like the idea of something like this. It's like a "choose your own adventure" story, but for figuring out sexuality. Cool idea.

Your reply helped me realize what exactly I have to know for each type to exapand sexual behavior labels. Sexual behavior explains what unity means for each type and what path each type choses to achieve that unity. So, thank you!

[Guest]

I am so, so, so tired of this discussion. And tired of the campaigning.

Wait untiI you've been doing this for years. Then you'II know what ''tired of campaigning'' feeIs Iike :lol: (though I'm pretty sure I personaIIy have pIenty more years of this in me because it's for a very important cause)

One of the great things about the internet is that no one is forcing you to partake in this discussion, so if it reaIIy is that tiring for you, you can take a break any time you Iike ^_^

[AW10]

I have completed the article to the point it can help more than just few people:

http://aw10-sandbox.wikia.com/wiki/The_Practical_Definition_of_Sexuality

Do you consider it helpful at this point of completion?

[AW10]

I have completed the article to the point it can help more than just few people:

http://aw10-sandbox.wikia.com/wiki/The_Practical_Definition_of_Sexuality

Do you consider it helpful at this point of completion?

It is fully complete now! Hope it helps!

[Fyren]

Major apologies, but I think your system is too mired in, and bogged down by, an overwhelming amount of labels and/or terminology to actually be useful to the general public. I think if I were to give your article to anyone not initiated in alternative (a)sexualities, or who just want a nice (as in accurate) and simple definition, they would become confused quite quickly. I think psychologists and those interested in the inner-workings of the mind could appreciate it, but I don't think this page would lift the veil of confusion in any way.

That said though, I do appreciate your attempt to use words to conceptualize sexuality - identity, orientation, behavior, etc. While I don't benefit from your system, nor do I understand it's purpose, you did put quite a bit of effort into it. Through the terminology and concepts used, we can somewhat see the lens you use to view reality. After all, that is what words are- the lens by which we perceive reality - simple definition.

Fyren

[Sally]

Honestly, I do not know my idea will work, I will see when I exapand the label descriptions. However, I am confident that, once I exapand the descriptions, if you pick a label from each of the three label systems, like I did in my AVEN signature, you will know how to achieve desired realationships with other people. Being on AVEN has learned me that sexuality is really nothing about sex. I am redefining sexuality in order to create a guide for finding compatibile life partner. All labels are defined, I just have to make them understandable by someone other than me.

Uh, no, that's not really a good idea. Sexuality IS about sex, and not everyone is looking for a compatible life partner. If that's what you want to do, then don't label it as "The Practical Definition of Sexuality." Call it "How to find a compatible life partner".

[Finn.]

So, I have a few questions and remarks. I love abstract concepts and theories and stuff so I was very intrigued. But you lost me quite quickly there.

Sexual identity:

I still don't know where I would fit. Somewhere between plain-asexual and grey-sexual? Which seems contradictory label-wise. I don't desire sex but would have sex / try it depending on the circumstances and person.

According to this approach to (a)sexuality I'm asexual I guess. With the current definition about sexual attraction I'm not. This just confuses me even more.

What does the "trying to protect themselves" about demi-sexuality mean? Or the "hoping to be rescued" part about demi-asexuality? Seems opinionated and assuming, even though I don't think that's your intention. Help me out if I just completely misunderstand this.

Sexual orientation:

What does psyche mean? You're talking about gender, so why call it psyche, this only confuses people? It's also really really binary. I would expect a "new approach" to be more inclusive.

Sexual behaviour:

I don't get any of this. What do you mean by context? By potential? Strengthening your psyche? Why use words like equanimity?

You either need to explain what you mean by all the words you use or use ones that are easier to understand. This is just not accessible to lots of people. And please change "his/her" to "their".

In general I'm still intruiged by this but I just don't get it. Maybe you could elaborate?

[AW10]

Major apologies, but I think your system is too mired in, and bogged down by, an overwhelming amount of labels and/or terminology to actually be useful to the general public. I think if I were to give your article to anyone not initiated in alternative (a)sexualities, or who just want a nice (as in accurate) and simple definition, they would become confused quite quickly. I think psychologists and those interested in the inner-workings of the mind could appreciate it, but I don't think this page would lift the veil of confusion in any way.

That said though, I do appreciate your attempt to use words to conceptualize sexuality - identity, orientation, behavior, etc. While I don't benefit from your system, nor do I understand it's purpose, you did put quite a bit of effort into it. Through the terminology and concepts used, we can somewhat see the lens you use to view reality. After all, that is what words are- the lens by which we perceive reality - simple definition.

Fyren

Thanks for appreciating effort I took to make the article, I have now made article even more improved. Yes, you have got it right when you say "I think psychologists and those interested in the inner-workings of the mind", since article is designed as standalone sequel of The Practical Definition of Personality:

http://aw10-sandbox.wikia.com/wiki/The_Practical_Definition_of_Personality

Honestly, I do not know my idea will work, I will see when I exapand the label descriptions. However, I am confident that, once I exapand the descriptions, if you pick a label from each of the three label systems, like I did in my AVEN signature, you will know how to achieve desired realationships with other people. Being on AVEN has learned me that sexuality is really nothing about sex. I am redefining sexuality in order to create a guide for finding compatibile life partner. All labels are defined, I just have to make them understandable by someone other than me.

Uh, no, that's not really a good idea. Sexuality IS about sex, and not everyone is looking for a compatible life partner. If that's what you want to do, then don't label it as "The Practical Definition of Sexuality." Call it "How to find a compatible life partner".

Well, that is what I would use article for, but not a single word in the article suggests how to use the article in your everyday life, it is up to you how you will use it. I just provided a tool. So, title is correct since title is not telling others how to use the article, unlike me who tends to suggest my view and beliefs to others.

So, I have a few questions and remarks. I love abstract concepts and theories and stuff so I was very intrigued. But you lost me quite quickly there.

Sexual identity:

I still don't know where I would fit. Somewhere between plain-asexual and grey-sexual? Which seems contradictory label-wise. I don't desire sex but would have sex / try it depending on the circumstances and person.

According to this approach to (a)sexuality I'm asexual I guess. With the current definition about sexual attraction I'm not. This just confuses me even more.

What does the "trying to protect themselves" about demi-sexuality mean? Or the "hoping to be rescued" part about demi-asexuality? Seems opinionated and assuming, even though I don't think that's your intention. Help me out if I just completely misunderstand this.

Sexual orientation:

What does psyche mean? You're talking about gender, so why call it psyche, this only confuses people? It's also really really binary. I would expect a "new approach" to be more inclusive.

Sexual behaviour:

I don't get any of this. What do you mean by context? By potential? Strengthening your psyche? Why use words like equanimity?

You either need to explain what you mean by all the words you use or use ones that are easier to understand. This is just not accessible to lots of people. And please change "his/her" to "their".

In general I'm still intruiged by this but I just don't get it. Maybe you could elaborate?

Here is my answer per every section:

• [sexual identity] Plain-asexual have innate resistance to sex while grey-sexual have no innate resistance to sex. Also I have improved final sentence of each sexual identity, including demi-sexual and demi-asexual.
• [sexual orientation] I have completely removed mentions of gender. I have tried to define gender by psyche instead of body, but it only confused people.
• [sexual behavior] That section is the most complex section and no matter what I do, I can only make it less complex, not simple. After refactoring introduction to sexual behavior section, I think I have now made it more clear what I generally mean by high and low context/potential. More, words I have chosen to define high and low context/potential for each sexual behavior are crucial. I have thoroughly searched English dictionary to find those words, so unless I find a better word, all words will stay the same. On the other hand, I have changed strengthening unity to creating unity.

Hope this clears things up?

[Finn.]

Sexual identity: I like the new wording better! But don't you mean "also may not desire sex (...)" instead of "but may not desire sex (...)" when it's about demiasexuality? As you already talked about "having no innate want" the second not seems off. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Sexual orientation: One thing that I would criticise is that in this theory, homosexual people can only be attracted to homosexual people, bisexual people only to bisexual people? Homosexual people can totally be attracted to bisexual people. And wouldn't "the people of neither psyches" be more correct if it would be phrased "either" or "all" psyches?

Sexual behavior: It's clearer now, I understand it better. By potential/context, do you mean compatibility?

[AW10]

Sexual identity: I like the new wording better! But don't you mean "also may not desire sex (...)" instead of "but may not desire sex (...)" when it's about demiasexuality? As you already talked about "having no innate want" the second not seems off. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Sexual orientation: One thing that I would criticise is that in this theory, homosexual people can only be attracted to homosexual people, bisexual people only to bisexual people? Homosexual people can totally be attracted to bisexual people. And wouldn't "the people of neither psyches" be more correct if it would be phrased "either" or "all" psyches?

Sexual behavior: It's clearer now, I understand it better. By potential/context, do you mean compatibility?

• Sexual identity: Accepted your suggestion about demi-asexual and also polished description of each sexual identity label.
• Sexual orientation: Accepted your suggestion about pan-sexuality. However, when it comes to only being attracted to people of the same sexual orientation, this is where correct-enough is no longer correct, as I have mentioned in the first post of this thread. I designed sexual orientation so people can only be attracted to people of the same sexual orientation because I think that article will be more effectively usable in everyday life, since creating unity between people of different sexual orientation may not be entirely possible.
• Sexual behavior: If you mean life-partner compatibility, then life-partner compatibility is "hidden" inside of the article to avoid directly suggesting how to use the article in your everyday life. Well, two types that desire same kind of unity and seek different qualities in each other are compatible life-partners; that is why types are grouped the way they are grouped.

[Finn.]

Okay, I think I got it now.

I designed sexual orientation so people can only be attracted to people of the same sexual orientation because I think that article will be more effectively usable in everyday life, since creating unity between people of different sexual orientation may not be entirely possible.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

[AW10]

Okay, I think I got it now.

I designed sexual orientation so people can only be attracted to people of the same sexual orientation because I think that article will be more effectively usable in everyday life, since creating unity between people of different sexual orientation may not be entirely possible.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

I am glad that you think you got it now. And yes, we'll have to agree to disagree there.