Jump to content

Sex-favourable Asexuals and the Asexual Community


Pramana

Recommended Posts

Some people say that sex-favourable asexuals (asexuals who desire partnered sex) are not real asexuals. I disagree.

 

Often, asexual people may simply experience asexuality as a lack of desire for partnered sex. So attraction may not seem relevant to them. But some people who want to use the asexual label experience asexuality as a lack of attraction. They find that their lack of attraction affects their life and their relationships in a way that’s similar to the challenges faced by other people on the asexuality spectrum. They think that the ability to use the asexual label would help them to explain themselves, and to help their partners to understand them.

One self-identified sex-favourable asexual describes how a boyfriend couldn’t understand how her desire for sex didn’t translate into sexual attraction to him. How she didn’t respond sexually in a way that would be expected of people who experience sexual attraction. The way in which sexual people often expect others to respond in relationships. Unable to adequately explain this using the vocabulary of sexual orientation, she was left to say: it’s not you, it’s me. He was left feeling dejected. The relationship dwindled.

An expansive definition of asexuality which includes those who don’t experience attraction but who do experience desire for partnered sex would help these people. It would respect human autonomy by allowing people to decide their own identities, as reflected in the AVEN principle that only you can decide if you’re asexual. And I can’t see how it would do any harm. Everyone who experiences asexuality primarily through lack of sexual desire would still be included. For those reasons, I can’t see any ethical justification for telling this small group of people that they shouldn’t use the terminology which they think best describes their experience.

https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/living-as-a-sex-favourable-asexual/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I'm incredibly oblivious to partnered sexual desire, as I've never experienced it before. I'm technically autochorissexual, so I can get the idea of being turned on/aroused, but I don't understand how a lack of sexual attraction could mean you could desire partnered sex. I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, I just don't understand. I still firmly believe that sex-favorable asexuals are asexual, since we're such an expansive umbrella of people, but could you explain how sex-favorable asexuals want to have sex but don't feel attraction? Is it sort of like how you can eat without being hungry? (Sorry for the general confusion, I've been thinking about this for a while and thought I'd ask).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreement. (Nods)

 

It's not up to other people to determine what you are. It's not only incredibly presumptuous, but not just a little bit rude.

 

Of course being unable to put things like this into words, which are rather essential in communication, makes it all the more difficult to believe/understand. At least for myself it's a bit easier: I'm interested in sex as a fascinating subject of study, something to observe. Yes I have a libido sometimes, but that and my personal interest in the subject have very little to do with one another.

 

Asexuality, I think, is a more generalized term. I like to refer to it as the umbrella, under which there's an almost endless array of branching orientations, views, and or feelings. There's probably a better, more specific term I could use for myself, but Ace serves me just fine. But the option is very much there for anyone who's looking for that less broad and more specific term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@200 Ponies Dude, I often eat when I'm not hungry. I'm not even speaking in analogy, that's just a fact.

 

I'm not sure it's the best example for the scenario in this discussion, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite fond of this definition:

 

"Sex favourable Asexuals are individuals who do not experience sexual attraction. While they may enjoy the feeling of sex, they lack the intrinsic desire to seek out partnered sexual gratification."

 

I'm a sex favourable Asexual myself. I basically enjoy the feeling of sex and won't say no if my partner asked but will not go out looking for it myself because I have better things to do with my life :P 

 

I'm going to add a clause in here. While I may enjoy sex and would do so if asked, the more I have sex, the more my mental health deteriorates. Sex causes me to become mentally ill because I know my actions do not match what I naturally want. I've been told it's similar to a lesbian having sex with a man, while they can enjoy the physical feeling of it, it's not something they naturally would do if left to live as they wish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no strong opinion on the definition of asexuality, but assuming that this definition would somehow affect the success of a relationship puts the whole discussion on a false premise. Definitions affect the ease of communication, they don't make it altogether possible or impossible to describe yourself to someone. With regards to a life partner, you should have enough time to explain yourself in detail to them. For example, when I describe my partner as asexual, that's just something to help others outside the relationship understand our situation, it's not something we actually need within our relationship to understand each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CBC said:

I'm sure there a few one-off cases where I'd say, "Okay, what you're describing as a lack of sexual attraction sounds pretty asexual to me," but for the most part, I respectfully disagree. I do think there are people who could be described as "sex-favourable aces", but if you're desiring sex, as opposed to willingly engaging in it now and then to make your non-asexual partner happy (i.e., you're not repulsed and have overall positive views regarding sex, despite having no innate drive to have it yourself, so you're willing to compromise), you're not asexual. I would call such people something else: sexual.

That's not up to us, though. And even if it were, it's not a broad-sweeping generalization you can make. It's something that would have to be looked at on an individual basis. Into details that take time to determine like what does the person truly want in conjunction with what they feel and desire.

 

But let's say that someone could be described as demisexual. Would that not fall under the 'umbrella' of asexuality? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
chair jockey

One person in this thread seems to be saying that some people should be allowed to decide how other people identify. Presumably the people who decide this for other people are a naturally superior elite who have the natural right to run the world. Oh, sorry, that's already the City of Toronto bureaucrats and much of Toronto City Council, not to mention the Trinity-Spadina and Broadview-Danforth political cliques. I love it when the separation of church from state gets reversed just because the church in question is The Church of I'm Everybody's Mommy. Thank you for your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what I'm gathering is that you're only asexual if you don't feel attraction and you don't feel desire. That kind of makes sense. At least, that's how it fits me as a label. But it seems the general issue here with sex-positive vs. sex-neutral vs. sex-repulsed asexuals and their place in the community always comes back to the somewhat abstract definition for the label. At least across these forums, it seems like we can't all arrive at one definition.

 

As for the topic, if the label is the closest to describing a person who is sex-positive like that, then I see no reason they couldn't use it. Even if they weren't totally asexual, if the label is useful, I'd say go for it. Although we might be getting into the realm of gray-sexuality at this point, which is another thing I have trouble understanding. Man, I need to get over to the Gray Area more often. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
chair jockey

I think I'm seeing what's happening but I could be wrong. AVEN does lose credibility because broader society doesn't have the same views of invalidation as AVEN does. In fact, very few subpopulations use that same definition (unless you count a good chunk of LGBT as a large population). And there is a tension between personal choice and what is needed for people to be able to live together in large groups. Not to make speeches but those are real issues and thank you for raising them @CBC. Just rubber-stamping the status quo on this website and using it as a springboard might not be good enough. And sorry I lost my temper because of my baggage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CBC Because it ain't. Where does it even begin to make sense that other people make our decisions for us past, you know, the general age of adulthood?

 

XD

 

Srsly, if it's not actually up to ourselves, but the genral public to tell us what we are/not into, why don't we just make all of our decisions that way?

 

"I wanna be an astwonaut!" - "Sorry, little Johnny, we all feel you're not quite up for it. Let's be honest, you're just fooling yourself. You get to be an accountant! Doesn't that sound fun?"

 

"But... I really like pork..." - "Do you know how much of the world's population is against it?! No! No more bacon for you!"

 

I mean, you can make a guess or suggestions, sure. And maybe you'd be right. But the only person who can truly know is the subject in question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, CBC said:

We're not talking about making decisions on what personal interests, hobbies, careers, etc. to pursue or what foods to eat. Those aren't parallels at all, unless you're saying that being straight/gay/bi/ace/whatever is like deciding what to eat for dinner or what to study at university or what colour to dye your hair.

That's fair to say but sexuality is a part of who we are. And I consider things like my food preferences and career choice and hair style to be integral parts of my personality. Sothere's not much separate there as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'd also like to ask that you answer my question. 

 

Anyways, if you still want to say that the examples I used are silly, then fine. They're silly. However; it's as equally as ludicrous to say someone else can tell you want your like to eat or what you want to do with your life, or style your hair, as it is for them to say what your sexuality is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CBC ... Okay, are you offended by the examples I used? I only used them because they're applicable to me. I mean, someone can try all they damn well please to convince me that I'll like dill pickles, and maybe I'll try them again some day, but... no they'll be staying in the bottle. It's just a metaphor, CBC.

 

Anyways.

 

So... what you seem to be talking about actually has nothing to do with deciding. It has to do with guessing, suggesting, etc.

 

There's no way you can no enough about a person in a single, multi-paragraph post to say what they are/not for certain. Of course we can try, and whether we want to or not we'll probably make little assumptions in our heads based on what we see/hear/read anyway. To use your own words, when someone asks the question, we can say they 'seem asexual or not.' Which is the best you can hope to do, not knowing the person personally or having access to their inner thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuals do not desire partnered sex. People who do desire partnered sex are sexuals. "Sex favourable" indicates that they might enjoy it once it happens, but they don't actively look out for it and it wouldn't cause them any stress if it never happened again.

 

I'm not into partying. Yet I went to a party last year and it was a ton of fun. Still, I wouldn't mind if I never went to a party again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

RE attraction and desire -

 

IMO there are two main concerns regarding attraction - one is, an emotional experience of attraction to other people, in a way that is deemed sexual. this would.. well, it'd be subjective, entirely up to the individual as they are the only person who experiences attraction. 

 

then the second is - desire for sex, which may or may not focus on individuals - it may just be for sexual contact in general. 

 

IMO either of these are often dismissed or ignored, in attempts to emphasize the other - the first is often dismissed or ignored either due to its subjective nature, or due to its similarity to romantic attraction, especially with how many people in general consider sexual and romantic attraction to be one and the same because it's that closely entwined by their subjective experience. 

 

 

I find the case of sex-favourable aces to be one where - it is both a person who does not feel "infatuated" so to speak (the better word is, unfortunately, "attracted") to a person, and also lacks desire for sexual engagement. but - they either can "physically" enjoy sex (which is controversial in its own right) or can be completely OK with sex if the partner asks of it - and so often these people happen to be in sexually active relationships despite lacking any drawn towards sexual behavior, just because it's easier to find a sexual relationship than an ace one and there's really no difference for them either way. 

 

it is  important to note that there is importance in feeling this "infatuation" for a partner in a relationship, as well as this desire for sex.  lacking only one of either of those is enough to cause difficulty in a person's connecting with their sexual partner. personally I care not however we refer to these things as long as we are moving towards understanding that both are important issues at hand in our community. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

regarding the discussion RE:  labeling others, labeling oneself, and etc. -

 

I would like to say, that a word has many meanings.

 

Conceptually, it is the responsibility of each individual to understand and be able to explain their own experiences. In this way, identity can only be determined by oneself.

 

But in awkward juxtaposition with this, the meaning of a word is by and large determined by its popular use. So in this way, identity is actually determined by culture - it makes no sense for someone to say "a rose is a brown, hairy beast with a mane who whinnies and is easily spooked if not wearing blinders"

 

so really it is important to notice both forces upon one's identity. one is the pressure to realize and determine who we are individually - and the other is the pressure to communicate reliably with others. Often these pressures force us into difficult or controversial scenarios. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't look at people and get horny. There are a lot of people like that (contrary to what many people on AVEN believe, sexual people don't all want to have sex with others based on appearance/have a sexual reaction to attractive people/feel a type of physical attraction that makes them want sex with that other person.. not all sexual people experience these things, which are most commonly defined here as "sexual attraction"). I don't look at people and get horny, I don't have a sexual reaction to the appearance of others, I don't care if I never have sex again and haven't had it for 6 years now and am actually very happy with that. However there are certain sexual acts I may enjoy enough to actively choose to have them with my partner under the right circumstances, maybe. This doesn't make me a "sex-favourable asexual", I'm a sexual person who really doesn't give much of a toss about sex and am in general happiest without it. I don't need to cling to a label that's meant to only apply to like 1% at the very most of the population just to help me feel unique, I can just openly say "meh, I'm mostly not into sex" and hang out on AVEN with the people I have the most in common with when it comes to this topic. Easy.

 

Imo the only way someone can be a "sex favourable" asexual is if they don't mind sex when they do have it, but would never seek it out or actively choose to have it specifically for pleasure: They ONLY do it because their partner needs it to be happy, and they themselves would be happiest without it but don't mind it when they have it for the sake of their partner. However, I rarely if ever see self-identified "sex favourable asexuals" describing it like that. They generally say things like "I love having sex, it's a really pleasurable intimate experience and I couldn't be happy without it. However I don't care what the people look like who I have sex with - appearance just doesn't matter to me". This is just a total misunderstanding of normal sexuality, because there are many sexual people who love having sex but couldn't care less about appearance. I've met sexual partners like that on AVEN and have known many in my own life - my hypersexual ex was one of these exact people. According to how some people define "sex favourable asexual" my hypersexual ex was actually asexual because he just didn't care about appearance. He was homophobic so would never have sex with men, but no matter what a woman looked like, he'd have sex with her if she'd let him. Appearance just never, ever came into it for him.

 

So yeah, I take issue with the way many people here mistakenly perceive sexuals, forcing them all into this one quite rigid definition. Sexual people are perceived by many here in such a way that "if you don't look at attractive people, get horny, and want to have sex with them because they're attractive, then you're on the asexual spectrum.. and if you are on the ace spectrum but love having sex, then you're a sex-favourable ace" .. when actually there are many, many sexual people like that (almost all the hypersexual people I've met are like that: love sex but couldn't care less about the appearance of the people they have it with. Don't "look at people and get horny" ..It's sex that turns many hypersexuals on, not people.

 

Ps: hopefully there's not too many typos, I have to leave the house and don't have time to proofread T_T

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Homer said:

Asexuals do not desire partnered sex. People who do desire partnered sex are sexuals.

This is really all that's necessary as far as definitions.  .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

I don't know how you guys have the patience, honest I don't!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's possible to accept someone's experiences as real and valid while also believing that they should be classified differently. People talk about how asexuals are diverse, but sexuals can be very diverse in their experiences too. The fact that someone falls outside the norm for sexuals doesn't necessarily make them asexual. I can give other examples of people who don't sexually respond the way they're often expected to in relationships, like sexual fetishists and sex-repulsed sexuals. People like that might find common ground with asexuals, but still ultimately be sexual.

 

I think some are concerned that if the line isn't drawn anywhere, the definition of asexuality will be diluted to the point that it's effectively meaningless - and in terms of education and visibility, that could potentially cause harm. I don't identify as asexual anymore, though, so I suppose it's not really my beef at this point...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Initially, I was sceptical that there could be asexuals who desire partnered sex. But I found that the author of the blog I referenced makes a compelling case for situating that experience as analogous to other recognizably asexual forms of experience. In order to include that experience within the asexual community, sex-favourable asexuals are only asking that we follow the slightly more expansive attraction-based definition, a definition which has been used since the early 2000s by AVEN, asexuality organizers/writers, and academics to describe the asexual community.

 

There's a concern that permitting people the freedom to decide whether or not they're asexual will dilute the term. But I can't imagine there are very many "typical" sexual people who would want to call themselves "asexual," given the option. True, a framework that allows people to decide their identities for themselves might admit the occasional outlier case, where it may be difficult to understand why that person feels their experience is "asexual". But that's a small price to pay for preserving human autonomy.

The desire model is a valid perspective from which to look at asexuality. And the attraction model is another valid perspective. It has been suggested to me that the desire model might better reflect the experiences of older asexuals, while the attraction model might better reflect the experiences of adolescents going through puberty (I don't have a psychology background, but that would make sense of my high school memories).

My impression is that AVEN and other asexuality organizers initially favoured the attraction-based definition so that asexuality can be described as an orientation (since attraction models are the norm for describing heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality). True, asexuality could also be represented as the lack of a sexual orientation under a desire-based model. But the attraction-based model has more political utility; it makes it easier to argue for the recognition of asexuality as a valid human experience rather than a desire disorder which needs to be medicalized. The tendency to over-diagnose/over-prescribe for desire disorders is a trend that should reversed, but driven as it is by significant profit motives in the pharmaceutical industry, that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Initially, I was sceptical that there would be asexuals who desire partnered sex. But I found that the author of the blog I referenced makes a compelling case for situating that experience as analogous to other recognizably asexual forms of experience. In order to include that experience within the asexual community, sex-favourable asexuals are only asking that we follow the slightly more expansive attraction-based definition, a definition which has been used since the early 2000s by AVEN, asexuality organizers/writers, and academics to describe the asexual community.

 

There's a concern that permitting people the freedom to decide whether or not they're asexual will dilute the term. But I can't imagine there are very many "typically" sexual people who would want to call themselves "asexual," given the option. True, a framework that allows people to decide their identities for themselves might admit the occasional outlier case, where it may be difficult to understand why that person feels their experience is "asexual". But that's a small price to pay for preserving human autonomy.

The desire model is a valid perspective from which to look at asexuality. And the attraction model is another valid perspective. It has been suggested to me that the desire model might better reflect the experiences of older asexuals, while the attraction model might better reflect the experiences of adolescents going through puberty (I don't have a psychology background, but that would make sense of my high school memories).

My impression is that AVEN and other asexuality organizers initially favoured the attraction-based definition so that asexuality can be described as an orientation (since attraction models are the norm for describing heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality). True, asexuality could also be represented as the lack of a sexual orientation under a desire-based model. But the attraction-based model has more political utility; it makes it easier to argue for the recognition of asexuality as a valid human experience rather than a desire disorder which needs to be medicalized. The tendency to over-diagnose/over-prescribe for desire disorders is a trend that should reversed, but driven as it is by significant profit motives in the pharmaceutical industry, that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

AVEN itself, in the General FAQ of this site, defines sexual attraction as "the desire for partnered sexual contact with someone else" ... So, going by the way AVEN defines it, asexuals don't actually desire sex for pleasure.

 

And in other languages (ie German) asexuality is defined as a lack of desire for partnered sex, the German version of AVEN states this very clearly on their front page. It's only English that uses such a weird definition that's so open to misinterpretation and manipulation.

 

I ask how an asexual who desires sex is different than a sexual person attracted to to the act of sex but not to people? They desire sex, love sex, enjoy sex, but don't care who it's with and feel no emotional or sexual reaction to appearance or body-types or whatever, I've known many "pansexuals" like this, and having worked in the sex industry for two years when I was younger have been exposed to many more people who fit this category than the average person probably would be. Or how are they different from someone who desires sex as a result of falling in love with someone, but who doesn't "look at that person and get horny" or whatever.

 

How are asexuals who say they desire sex, defining sexual attraction? And are they sure their definition of sexual attraction applies to all sexual people, or only a select type of sexual people who experience a specific type of sexuality? (ie looking at people and getting horny, wanting sex based on appearance etc - predominantly experienced by teenage boys and hypersexual adult males, and I think about 30% of females based on some studies linked here a while ago)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also on top of that, the woman you discuss in the OP was more having a personality clash with her ex partner than anything else. Many sexual people wouldn't try to pick their sexual interactions apart like that and insist their female partner have a sexual reaction to their appearance, that's actually pretty extreme. It's very, very common for women not to have a sexual reaction to the appearance of their partner, but to still desire partnered sexual intimacy with that partner. Most people would leave it at that and be happy they're getting sex instead of coming down on the specific type of desire their partner is experiencing and what's causing that. He was looking specifically for a woman who would have a physical sexual reaction to his appearance, she (and many, many other women) are just not like that. She needs to find a sexual partner that doesn't care that she doesn't get horny when she looks at him (there are plenty of men like that out there). I'm pretty sure if she got an asexual partner (someone who has no desire for partnered sexual intimacy, ever) she wouldn't be happy at all if she does actually desire partnered sex. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I became curious about the definitions on the foreign AVEN sites based on seeing two people mention the German site only uses the concept of sexual desire in its definition. I located the definition for asexuality on as many of the sites as I could and picked out the relevant terminology. Here it is, for anyone who is curious:

 

German - sexual desire
Dutch - sexual attraction
Japanese - sex appeal (this version is linked from the German version, but not from our own for some reason)
Russian - sex drive
French - sexual attraction
Spanish - sexual attraction
Norwegian - sexual attraction
Czech - sex games (I kid you not)
Turkish - sexual attraction
Chinese - sexual attraction/no interest in sex

 

Edit: oh yeah, I mostly used Google Translate for this. I double checked the Japanese against my own personal Japanese-English dictionary, and I ran the Russian through several because it was kind of gibberish.

 

Edited again: I feel bad about fact-checking you Cartophile. It's nothing personal and I'll always respect how you helped me out when I first joined AVEN. The facts are important. I don't think you were lying, only that someone gave you bad info and you found them trustworthy enough to believe it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

Also on top of that, the woman you discuss in the OP was more having a personality clash with her ex partner than anything else. Many sexual people wouldn't try to pick their sexual interactions apart like that and insist their female partner have a sexual reaction to their appearance, that's actually pretty extreme. It's very, very common for women not to have a sexual reaction to the appearance of their partner, but to still desire partnered sexual intimacy with that partner. Most people would leave it at that and be happy they're getting sex instead of coming down on the specific type of desire their partner is experiencing and what's causing that. He was looking specifically for a woman who would have a physical sexual reaction to his appearance, she (and many, many other women) are just not like that. She needs to find a sexual partner that doesn't care that she doesn't get horny when she looks at him (there are plenty of men like that out there). I'm pretty sure if she got an asexual partner (someone who has no desire for partnered sexual intimacy, ever) she wouldn't be happy at all if she does actually desire partnered sex. 

I think what's she's describing in the the story, though, isn't just that she isn't turned on by the sight of her partner (spontaneous desire), it's that even after initiating sexual intimacy she doesn't become turned on (responsive desire). In fact, she becomes turned off. There is a tendency in the asexual community to equate sexual attraction with one form of sexual desire (spontaneous desire – and thus with teenage boys and hypersexual males), which as the author explains in another post detailing her choice of terminology, is inaccurate:

https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/reflections-on-the-use-and-boundaries-of-sex-favourable-asexual-as-a-term/

You make an interesting point that there may be people who consider themselves sexual, and who experience their sexuality entirely or almost entirely as a desire for partnered sex that arises from causes other that sexual attraction. I'm fine with that. Aspects of people's personalities and their social environment will influence how they experience and perceive themselves. I don't anticipate that everyone who does not experience sexual attraction but who does experience sexual desire will want to call themselves asexual. Their overall experience will be the result of a combination of many factors, and it's up to them to decide what's appropriate.

Regarding the English/German language difference, it's kind of hard for me to say because I don't know German, but the English usage tracks how sexual orientations are usually defined in the academic literature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pramana said:

The desire model is a valid perspective from which to look at asexuality. And the attraction model is another valid perspective. It has been suggested to me that the desire model might better reflect the experiences of older asexuals, while the attraction model might better reflect the experiences of adolescents going through puberty (I don't have a psychology background, but that would make sense of my high school memories).

I would like to expand upon (and modify) what I said in the other thread concering this. So, it's considered pretty common for approx. 13 year olds to develop an interest/curiosity about the topic of sex. At approx. 13 it's also common for people to experience their first crushes/romantic attractions. It's not terribly uncommon for homosexual people to say they first recognized their orientation at this age either. However, it's a lot harder to ascertain if what these approx. 13 year olds are experiencing is sexual attraction or just romantic attraction. From an ethical standpoint, it's rather difficult to justify asking people this age about their sexual thoughts and feelings, let alone get parental consent to do so. I did come across one paper with some statistics, but it's after 3am and I did not read it the whole way through to see how they obtained these statistics and whether other research supports these findings. So, in light of all that I have reservations. I will go back and take another look at it in the evening, but for now I will say that it does show that sexual thoughts such as sexual attraction and sexual fantasies, are not the norm for this age group. I believe it was a fifth of boys and significantly less for girls. So, the usefulness of either an attraction-based, or a desire-based definition of asexuality is questionable for very young people. The usefulness of the sexual-attraction based definition still appears to have better odds, particularly for boys as the case may be, since sexual desire (as evidenced by sexual activity) usually starts showing up in significant (though still minority) numbers at 15+.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xenobot said:

So, I became curious about the definitions on the foreign AVEN sites based on seeing two people mention the German site only uses the concept of sexual desire in its definition. I located the definition for asexuality on as many of the sites as I could and picked out the relevant terminology. Here it is, for anyone who is curious:

Czech - sex games (I kid you not)

For the record, I'd be willing to abandon my previous views and adopt the "sex games" definition!

But this shows that relying on a direct translation from one language to another is a dubious proposition, without knowing how sexuality is talked about in that language. I thought I would investigate Sanskrit terminology concerning the matter (if ever there was a language that has words for love and sex, it's Sanskrit). And in Sanskrit, you don't just have words for attraction and desire, you have words specifying various minute differentiations between various forms of desire, attraction, and love. For example, there's "matta," defined as being mad or drunk with sexual passion in the manner of a rutting elephant. And there's "kama," which connotes sexual pleasure and longing/love connected to aesthetic/sensual enjoyment. And hundreds of other terms. Sanskrit terminology tries to define just about every kind of subjective experience. If it's difficult to get people to agree on whether they experience a broad concept such as "sexual attraction," imagine trying to validate any particular Sanskrit term by crowdsourcing whether or not people agree they experience it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I don't know how you guys have the patience, honest I don't!

Customer service person here :D

 

5 hours ago, Xenobot said:

Edit: oh yeah, I mostly used Google Translate for this. I double checked the Japanese against my own personal Japanese-English dictionary, and I ran the Russian through several because it was kind of gibberish.

G**gle Translate is my go-to place when I desperately need a laugh. It's okay to get a general idea of a longer-ish text or a paragraph, but it can mess up badly if you just put in one single term. I wouldn't trust it all too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoLongerActive1234

An asexual person is someone who does not desire sex with someone else, this is the general definition atm as I understand it. It makes sense for clarity to have this distinction. At the same time how does one determine who a 'real asexual' is. If one would go by a very narrow strict view an asexual would need to be aromantic, feel no sexual attraction or sexual desire, have no libido, not innately wanting to masturbate or anything else of sexual nature. That does seem really far fetched doesn't it.
One could make a comparison to asexuals who masturbate. For a lot of them it is merely a release type thing and it is hard to find anything sexual about it. I could see how that could be similar for someone about having sex with another person without having any attraction.

Strictly speaking these asexuals would be sexuals as would demisexuals or Grey asexuals since we go by the desire sex with someone else definiton (even if you'd just experince it once in a lifetime). But then again there is a reason that we have these asexual umbrella spectrum labels, they appeared because there was a need for them and there is a reason as to why they stay and why people use them. It's because people's experience with their sexuality align a lot with and share similarities to asexuals. I'd think someone who experiences sexual attraction but no sexual desire and someone who experiences it vice versa would fall under the Grey Asexual label but if someone feels that asexual works for them then I'm not going to argue against that.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Homer said:

Customer service person here :D

 

G**gle Translate is my go-to place when I desperately need a laugh. It's okay to get a general idea of a longer-ish text or a paragraph, but it can mess up badly if you just put in one single term. I wouldn't trust it all too much.

No, I know. I always put in a sentence or more so it had context and then picked out the relevant terminology for the sake of brevity. Also, Russian and Japanese were cross checked. The Dutch "seksuele aantrekking" speaks for itself if you know anything about that language, as does the French "d'attirance sexuelle", as does the Spanish "atracción sexual", and you get my point.

 

Maybe instead of dismissing me out of hand you should go look for yourself or at least ask for clarification on my methodology. I do see now how saying I "picked out relevant terminology" could be misinterpreted, but if I could hone in on the relevant terminology prior to translation in every case, particularly for the cases where the language is very dissimilar from english, then that would be very impressive indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
On 3/9/2017 at 7:30 PM, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

I don't look at people and get horny. There are a lot of people like that (contrary to what many people on AVEN believe, sexual people don't all want to have sex with others based on appearance/have a sexual reaction to attractive people/feel a type of physical attraction that makes them want sex with that other person.. not all sexual people experience these things, which are most commonly defined here as "sexual attraction"). I don't look at people and get horny, I don't have a sexual reaction to the appearance of others, I don't care if I never have sex again and haven't had it for 6 years now and am actually very happy with that. However there are certain sexual acts I may enjoy enough to actively choose to have them with my partner under the right circumstances, maybe. This doesn't make me a "sex-favourable asexual", I'm a sexual person who really doesn't give much of a toss about sex and am in general happiest without it. I don't need to cling to a label that's meant to only apply to like 1% at the very most of the population just to help me feel unique, I can just openly say "meh, I'm mostly not into sex" and hang out on AVEN with the people I have the most in common with when it comes to this topic. Easy.

 

Imo the only way someone can be a "sex favourable" asexual is if they don't mind sex when they do have it, but would never seek it out or actively choose to have it specifically for pleasure: They ONLY do it because their partner needs it to be happy, and they themselves would be happiest without it but don't mind it when they have it for the sake of their partner. However, I rarely if ever see self-identified "sex favourable asexuals" describing it like that. They generally say things like "I love having sex, it's a really pleasurable intimate experience and I couldn't be happy without it. However I don't care what the people look like who I have sex with - appearance just doesn't matter to me". This is just a total misunderstanding of normal sexuality, because there are many sexual people who love having sex but couldn't care less about appearance. I've met sexual partners like that on AVEN and have known many in my own life - my hypersexual ex was one of these exact people. According to how some people define "sex favourable asexual" my hypersexual ex was actually asexual because he just didn't care about appearance. He was homophobic so would never have sex with men, but no matter what a woman looked like, he'd have sex with her if she'd let him. Appearance just never, ever came into it for him.

 

So yeah, I take issue with the way many people here mistakenly perceive sexuals, forcing them all into this one quite rigid definition. Sexual people are perceived by many here in such a way that "if you don't look at attractive people, get horny, and want to have sex with them because they're attractive, then you're on the asexual spectrum.. and if you are on the ace spectrum but love having sex, then you're a sex-favourable ace" .. when actually there are many, many sexual people like that (almost all the hypersexual people I've met are like that: love sex but couldn't care less about the appearance of the people they have it with. Don't "look at people and get horny" ..It's sex that turns many hypersexuals on, not people.

 

Ps: hopefully there's not too many typos, I have to leave the house and don't have time to proofread T_T

further more also. (piggybacking this! I aggree a lot with what is said!)

 

 myself I do feel horny if I admire an attractive person for long enough. but I ID as grey because - when it comes to actually acting sexy with someone else, I'm like wait wtf I just want to look at you while we talk about whateverthefuck. I just enjoy passively admiring my sexual aspects, actively engaging in it is kind of... pointless lol. 

 

my point in mentioning this is to show how, if it were true that sexuality was exactly and only "feeling attracted towards others" then I, a person who would very much rather not have sex please thank you, would be a sexual person. while all these horndogs f'ing their evening into bliss are aces. huh? :huh:

 

 

 

PS. IMO both characters are grey. the person who has "attraction" but no desire, and the person who has "active desire" but no attraction. I say "active desire" because IMO it's 100% understandable for a person to say "wtf I don't desire sex, I just happen to have it a lot because it's fun" like I do not understand what most people mean when they talk about desire. but if someone is often doing a thing, they are actively revealing that they have some draw towards it. so that's what I mean by "active desire" 

 

like nine times out of ten I masturbate because I was half asleep and scratching myself like on the back, on the leg, etc, all sorts of places. and moving around. and eventually one of my movements engages my  sexy parts. and before I'm aware of it I'm gently massaging myself. and then I go, well why the f not whatever and I do it. if this is not desire, then I can train myself to have sex every day with a complete lack of desire :o wowo so impress what an asexual :rolleyes:

 

 

pps. no I am not saying that behavior is what determines orientation. it is just one way we can observe our habits. if we notice that we have sex a lot and always wish we weren't doing it, but we're doing it because the partner needs it and we love them so we make sacrifices because that's importnat in a relationship. then it's the case that we have a desire to build a stable relationship. and it's important in this case for us to also make sure that we're handling the stability of our ability to compromise as well, don't want to be destroying ourselves with sex we don't want. but if we're finding ourselves having lots of sex, actively encouraging the process of the encounter, and thouroughly enjoying it. these are all signs of our attraction. it is not some thing which is like "woah look at me I have a boner and I'm looking in the direction of that hot babe" no that only happens to like. what was it, 60% of men? and even at that it's only like, I'd guess, 30% of the thrill of sexual attraction and oh btw the actual aspect described of that thrilling experience is the boner and the hot babe, which is only I'd extimate about 40% of what's really being experience in the moment. so the whole cliche "look at someone hot and feel good and you just know it's sexual attraction baby!" is - .5 (gender) * .6 (commonality) * .3 (frequency) *.4 (extent of experience) and note this is for sure an overestimate on all cases - .0360. three percent AKA 3% of all of sexuality is looking at a person and feeling hot and bothered. 

 

I'd say really, rough estimate here. that probably 60-70% of the sexual experience is Never talked about. how can you? think about that time you felt butterflies in your stomach. wow really what did you swallow those poor critters alive for? much torture! think about it again. explain to me what it felt like to have butterflies in your stomach. oh wait - you really can't, there literally is a complete lack of adequate language to 100% identify exactly what it feels like. at best you can say "a tightness, but it's a nice tightness! not a bad one! but it does kind of hurt, but in a goodway I mean. and it sort of feels like movement kind of but really that is an illusion because it definitely isn't a moving feeling. and even though I say there is butterflies in my stomach there's also a tightness in my chest and neck, and a shortness of breath, and my mind feels kind of compressed as if there's too much information to process. and my vision - even though my eyes are working fine and there is no actual distortion of vision - my brain I guess just refuses to process the info right so it's almost as if the world becomes foggy. and I feel kind of dizzy because of it which is kind of actually a good feeling and wait it isn't actually feeling dizzy because I don't sway and totter and fall over - that is really what dizzy is, but the feeling is kind of the same. and OH CRAP I was supposed to be talking about the stomach I completely forgot about that OMG I can't even really hold focus on the sensation of the butterflies because there's just SOO much that's going on in my body all at once - and that's not to mention that I actually have this strange sense of noticing what emotion I'm feeling. where it's kind of like just consiously thinking "wow I'm swoony" but moreso it's actually just kind of intuitively knowing this is happening. OH and did I mention that some how this whole time I'm actually just focussing on the vision of beauty - except not really because it's harder to focus, but yet I percieve myself to be focused? if I actually focus on the person the swoony feeling goes away because my brain is busy focusing on the details so it dims out the rest of the stuff. so if I really want to enjoy how a pretty person looks, I actually got to Not focus on them at all! what a conundrum!" 

 

and wow I just realized how HUGELY overzealous my estimates were lol. because in all of that rant of what "butterflies in my stomach" really means when I say it, I would NOW estimate I've covered the experience of "butterflies in my stomach" by about 40-60%. assuming that my language meant anything to you at all and did not go over your head because autistic me is Super aware of my body's experiences compared to the normal person, so I've spent a lot of time thinking about and trying to understand these experiences. but most people probably don't even realize the Depth of experience they feel in every moment, because they take the part that is most felt and throw out the rest. and wait did I mention how feeling sexually attracted to a person is only like... 15% butterflies in my stomach, and 85% other stuff on top of that? 

 

life is so goddamn rich xD 

 

 

 

TO summarize because I turned this into a rant lmao. We Say "a guy looking at a hot girl feels horny and gets an erection" but stop and realize how that is necessarily only the tip of the ice burg and no I don't mean 10% I mean MUCH LESS of a percentage than that. probably 0.5% or less. but taking the time to develop language to express ALL the sensations, and experiences, ALL at once is ridiculous and anyway Way too subjective to matter. because feeling a tightness in my chest isn't the Exact same feeling for all scenarios in which I feel tightness in my chest. some of them are associated with happiness, others with sadness, some with anxiety and others with calm serenity. but I use the same words for them all. 

 

so to the reader. if you think that "Sexual attraction" is "looking at people and feeling horny" or "wanting to have sex" or "warm feelings in the loins" or "butterflies in the stomach except it's sexy not aesthetic" or "being a perv" or "lust" or "loving someone in that hot way" or "romance" because you're the type of person who calls sex romance. none of those things are really true at all. they. are. all. symbolic! The real sensation of sexual attraction is like. it's so deep that your brain tunes 90% of it out because the sensations in life are so so so so so high in reality, that our brains literally constantlly have to tune them all out. and when we use language. we necessarily have to choose something to symbolize such a rich depth of experience in one word. There is a reason humans like poetry! and hate walls of text! the simpler the language, the more beautifully it holds the deep context. the more language we use - it doesn't change the context in any way. it just creates more Shit our brains need to filter out. 

 

 

 

 

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...