Definition discussion.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I don't have much more to add on this point, expect to reiterate that basic human decency with respect to how we treat and talk to people is a value. I find it's only a small group of people who advocate changing AVEN in the way you suggest, and there's a probably a reason for that.

The reason is that AVEN has lost its way, that there are few people left who actually care about its original mission, while the majority is alright with it having become twisted into something serving their own purpose over the good of asexuals as a whole.

[Kai99]

Quote

As I've explained before, it matters whether or not people can use the terms which they think best describes them.

So there are now terms that best suit people? I thought anyone can be asexual if they chose? So how would asexuality fit them if it is the person's choice to identify?

 

Quote

People want to be able to express their identity; the ability to do so conveys agency. Telling people that there're not really one of us but that they can still associate with us is not sufficient, because it doesn't take their concerns seriously.

What identity? Why do these people want to identify as asexual if there is no requirements for asexuality?

 

Quote

I, for one, feel excluded by your claim that someone can't be a real asexual unless they are born that way, regardless of whether or not I can still participate under your version of AVEN. How would I describe myself in public if I can't use the language which best reflects my experiences and interests?

But if anyone can be asexual than your not describing yourself as anyone when you identify as asexual. You are confusing me now.

[Pramana]

Just now, Kai99 said:

So there are now terms that best suit people? I thought anyone can be asexual if they chose? So how would asexuality fit them if it is the person's choice to identify?

 

What identity? Why do these people want to identify as asexual if there is no requirements for asexuality?

 

But if anyone can be asexual than your not describing yourself as anyone when you identify as asexual. You are confusing me now.

Anyone can identify as asexual, but most people don't want to. The people who want to are those who derive some value from the term, through expressing the fact that they don't seek sexual relationships or that the way in which they seek sexual relationships lacks one or more of the main components normally attached to the pursuit of sexual relationships.

Likewise, I'm free to call myself "sexual," but there would be no value to me in doing so. In fact, doing so would create problems for me, given that I'm sex-repulsed.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

1 minute ago, Pramana said:

Anyone can identify as asexual, but most people don't want to. The people who want to are those who derive some value from the term, through expressing the fact that they don't seek sexual relationships or that the way in which they seek sexual relationships lacks one or more of the main components normally attached to the pursuit of sexual relationships.

Likewise, I'm free to call myself "sexual," but there would be no value to me in doing so. In fact, doing so would create problems for me, given that I'm sex-repulsed.

And the way 'asexuals who desire sex' identify causes problems for us who are legitimately asexual by common sense. I'm aro, but for romantic aces this is a serious problem if anyone is ever going to take us serious enough to ever date an 'asexual'.

[Snao Cone]

I'm more worried about false negatives than false positives. If false positives - that is, people who identify as asexual even though they desire partnered sex as part of their lives or intimate relationships - stick around AVEN and take part in discussions, then perhaps they would eventually come to stop identifying as asexual after learning enough about themselves and a/sexuality in general. People who think they're asexual but don't actually turn out that way are not problems to have here.

 

False negatives - that is, people who don't identify as asexual despite having zero desire for partnered sex as part of their lives or relationships - who read the FAQ or some other AVEN resource and think "Oh, Chris Evans is a gorgeous human so I guess I won't join this group because I'm not asexual" are being deterred from joining the discussions and learning more about asexuality and identifying as asexual even when they do fit the word. How is ignoring, neglecting, or otherwise increasing false negatives the more "inclusive" option? How is that better for asexual visibility? It's not. This is the angle we need to take to change things, because this is having a much worse impact on the cause.

[Kai99]

2 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Anyone can identify as asexual, but most people don't want to. The people who want to are those who derive some value from the term, through expressing the fact that they don't seek sexual relationships or that the way in which they seek sexual relationships lacks one or more of the main components normally attached to the pursuit of sexual relationships.

Likewise, I'm free to call myself "sexual," but there would be no value to me in doing so. In fact, doing so would create problems for me, given that I'm sex-repulsed.

If anyone can identify as asexual that means asexuality has no meaning. You can't say asexuals believe this and that if anyone can be asexual. You can not have it both ways. What is stopping someone who loves sex from identifying as asexual? Nothing, because there isn't any terms or conditions for asexuality. Asexuality is nothing but something to identify as, at least, that is what you want.

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

I'm more worried about false negatives than false positives. If false positives - that is, people who identify as asexual even though they desire partnered sex as part of their lives or intimate relationships - stick around AVEN and take part in discussions, then perhaps they would eventually come to stop identifying as asexual after learning enough about themselves and a/sexuality in general. People who think they're asexual but don't actually turn out that way are not problems to have here.

 

False negatives - that is, people who don't identify as asexual despite having zero desire for partnered sex as part of their lives or relationships - who read the FAQ or some other AVEN resource and think "Oh, Chris Evans is a gorgeous human so I guess I won't join this group because I'm not asexual" are being deterred from joining the discussions and learning more about asexuality and identifying as asexual even when they do fit the word. How is ignoring, neglecting, or otherwise increasing false negatives the more "inclusive" option? How is that better for asexual visibility? It's not. This is the angle we need to take to change things, because this is having a much worse impact on the cause.

In the absence of Skulls, I'm starting to love you instead, Snow.   

[Pramana]

14 minutes ago, Sally said:

As far as I can see, AVEN came about  as a community of people who wanted support for being asexual.  It was not, and is not, a community that has as a goal to be "supportive, inclusive, and validating".  Supportive of what?  Inclusive of whom?  Validating of what?  Asexuality.   There are plenty of supportive communities on-line and IRL, for all sorts of things.  This is an asexual community.  That's why we're here.

 

I'm an asexual who has never experienced the desire to have partnered sex.  I don't think I'm in the minority here.  And as an asexual, I don't experience any "truth" or "support" from people who  sometimes want sex but other times don't want sex, or always want sex but don't always feel attracted to who they have sex with, or decide they're asexual because they used to want and enjoy sex but they had a difficult relationship and now they've decided to be celibate.  That, to me, is NOT  asexuality.   It's variants of sexuality.   And if AVEN's members decided that all those variants were part of asexuality, I wouldn't belong here.  That would leave me as an asexual without support or validation.  

I don't see why you would have to feel invalidated because someone identifies with asexuality in a different way than you do. Asexuality is an umbrella term that can include many different things. Demisexuals, for example, are not saying that they are the same as asexuals, only that they have asexual-type experiences which place them on the asexual spectrum.

And once again I'll reiterate the fact that the position you advocate does not appear to have much in the way of popular support, nor is it supported by the BoD. Th indications are that "sexual attraction" will remain part of the definition, the self-identification principle will be retained, and that AVEN will never adopt an exclusionary framework.

[Pramana]

11 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

And the way 'asexuals who desire sex' identify causes problems for us who are legitimately asexual by common sense. I'm aro, but for romantic aces this is a serious problem if anyone is ever going to take us serious enough to ever date an 'asexual'.

Sex-favourable asexuals are a very small group, and I think they would usually specify that they are sex-favourable asexuals when talking to people, just as other asexuals specify whether they are willing to reach sexual compromises, are sex-repulsed, etc. I think people are capable of understanding these distinctions and taking them seriously. I would also add that arguments from common sense are weak arguments.

[Snao Cone]

4 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Demisexuals, for example, are not saying that they are the same as asexuals, only that they have asexual-type experiences which place them on the asexual spectrum.

a) some of them are implicitly saying they're the same as asexuals, thus giving the incorrect impression to those less familiar with the terms that asexual people just need to find the right person;

b) I, and many other people here, find the "asexual spectrum" wording to be an issue, and I think it is much clearer to refer to demisexuals/very very infrequently sexual people/etc as the grey area of sexuality that is very close to asexuality and thus they share many experiences and perspective with asexuals. The "asexual spectrum" and "asexual umbrella" can be easily replaced with "towards the asexual end of the spectrum" without invalidating people, don't you think? And yes, it does make a difference in how it's worded.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

In the absence of Skulls, I'm starting to love you instead, Snow.   

I already knew you were going to miss me

[Pramana]

10 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

If anyone can identify as asexual that means asexuality has no meaning. You can't say asexuals believe this and that if anyone can be asexual. You can not have it both ways. What is stopping someone who loves sex from identifying as asexual? Nothing, because there isn't any terms or conditions for asexuality. Asexuality is nothing but something to identify as, at least, that is what you want.

The use value of a term in society places practical limits on who will use it and how. The meaning of a term just is how it's used in the language. What's stopping someone who loves sex from calling themselves asexual is that doing so would scare off most potential sexual partners. That should be obvious.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

And once again I'll reiterate the fact that the position you advocate does not appear to have much in the way of popular support, nor is it supported by the BoD. Th indications are that "sexual attraction" will remain part of the definition, the self-identification principle will be retained, and that AVEN will never adopt an exclusionary framework.

Just because something is currently the status quo and not likely to change doesn't mean it's the good and right thing to do. You are, yet again, appealing to tradition/authority, nothing else.

 

I wonder if you'd have said to a pre-Civil War slave "contemporary science doesn't support the view that negroes were fully human nor truly intelligent, nor are your masters likely to set you free. Popular support is pro-slavery. So, back to the cotton field with you, sambo."

 

(Calls of "false analogy" in three, two... )

[Kai99]

Just now, Pramana said:

The use value of a term in society places practical limits on who will use it and how. The meaning of a term just is how it's used in the language. What's stopping someone who loves sex from calling themselves asexual is that doing so would scare off most potential sexual partners. That should be obvious.

Nope. There are plenty of people who use the term but love sex. I have seen several times asexuals who claim even though I'm asexual, that doesn't mean I don't want sex. They use the lack of sexual attraction as their reasoning for identifying as ace. It is way more common than you think. 

[Sally]

54 minutes ago,  skit said:

The other thing is that anyone would be able to tell anyone else they are wrong. So a group of people who believe that asexuality is defined based on attraction can go around to every thread and tell every person who uses the desire based definition that they are wrong. Non-libidoists can tell those that have a libido that they aren't asexual. Anti-sexuals can tell sex-positive people they aren't asexual. It would actually make education worse because you would have all these factions going around telling all the other factions that they are wrong and muddying the waters even further. 

They already do that, and because AVEN doesn't have a common-sense definition of asexuality, newbies are confused.  

[TheYear2017]

4 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I don't see why you would have to feel invalidated because someone identifies with asexuality in a different way than you do. Asexuality is an umbrella term that can include many different things. Demisexuals, for example, are not saying that they are the same as asexuals, only that they have asexual-type experiences which place them on the asexual spectrum.

And once again I'll reiterate the fact that the position you advocate does not appear to have much in the way of popular support, nor is it supported by the BoD. Th indications are that "sexual attraction" will remain part of the definition, the self-identification principle will be retained, and that AVEN will never adopt an exclusionary framework.

Asexuality is the sexual orientation of an asexual person. You cannot say that "asexual" means "no desire for sex" while "asexuality" suddenly becomes the umbrella term for many different things. Asexuality is the sexual orientation where someone has no desire for sex. Period.

 

Sexuality is all on a spectrum, and asexuality/asexual individuals is one point on that spectrum. While people may relate to asexuality, the point of this discussion is to finally define the term in such a way that people, asexuals and sexual alike, can understand what it actually means. Many people have mentioned that using "sexual attraction" in the definition is confusing and unclear, thereby making that definition lose its utility. A definition is only a definition if it helps clarify what something means, not confuses someone further.

 

And on that note, if our end goal is clarification of a definition, and as a result of clarifying that definition people realize they are not asexual, how is that seen as exclusionary? It's clarifying a term so that more people can understand what it means in a clear and succinct manner.

 

[nanogretchen4]

This demisexual is saying that I am sexual and that there is no asexual spectrum, and that asexuals don't want sex with anyone ever in contrast to demisexuals, who sometimes want sex. 

[Sally]

^^  This asexual agrees with you.   

 

 

 

 

 

[Snao Cone]

3 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

This demisexual is saying that I am sexual and that there is no asexual spectrum, and that asexuals don't want sex with anyone ever in contrast to demisexuals, who sometimes want sex. 

And we're so glad you're here regardless, part of the community though not part of the word.

[Guest]

Just now, Snow Cone said:

And we're so glad you're here regardless, part of the community though not part of the word.

Thoroughly seconded.   

 

 

(Try reconciling that with your narrative, folks who think I'm the mean kick-non-aces-out-the-forum dude.  )

[Pramana]

19 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

a) some of them are implicitly saying they're the same as asexuals, thus giving the incorrect impression to those less familiar with the terms that asexual people just need to find the right person;

b) I, and many other people here, find the "asexual spectrum" wording to be an issue, and I think it is much clearer to refer to demisexuals/very very infrequently sexual people/etc as the grey area of sexuality that is very close to asexuality and thus they share many experiences and perspective with asexuals. The "asexual spectrum" and "asexual umbrella" can be easily replaced with "towards the asexual end of the spectrum" without invalidating people, don't you think? And yes, it does make a difference in how it's worded.

Regarding (a), I agree people should be more precise, but it seems like anyone who is demisexual and who actually wants a sexual relationship would have to explain the difference to people.
Regarding (b), there is something of a trend in psychology to speak of phenomena like autism and OCD in terms of spectrums, in recognition of the fact that many people are more borderline. In terms of the semantic choice to say gray-asexual or gray-sexual, I would suggest that both exist, whereby the former puts the emphasis on "not having sex" while the latter puts the emphasis on "lower than average sex-drive". I find, for example, that it's more useful for me to say gray-asexual, given that I'm sex-repulsed and don't actually want to have sex, whereas if I say gray-sexual people would probably just think I have a low sex drive but still want a sexual relationship.

Regarding your concern for false negatives, I agree including "sexual desire" in the definition would be a good idea. With an and/or definition, lack of sexual desire would be recognized as sufficient for one to be asexual, so my thought is that should prevent confusion for people who find "sexual attraction" difficult to grasp. Other people may find the opposite, however, which is why I think we should use both terms.

[Pramana]

11 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Just because something is currently the status quo and not likely to change doesn't mean it's the good and right thing to do. You are, yet again, appealing to tradition/authority, nothing else.

 

I wonder if you'd have said to a pre-Civil War slave "contemporary science doesn't support the view that negroes were fully human nor truly intelligent, nor are your masters likely to set you free. Popular support is pro-slavery. So, back to the cotton field with you, sambo."

 

(Calls of "false analogy" in three, two... )

I'm not trying to justify it on that basis; I'm merely putting that forward as a statement of reality. I'm actually arguing for a change to the stars quo, in favour of an and/or definition, after all.

But the reasons why an idea isn't popular might offer some insights into whether or not that idea is any good (in this case – conflict with science and the alienation of many people on the asexuality spectrum are major deficiencies).

[Pramana]

16 minutes ago, TheYear2017 said:

Asexuality is the sexual orientation of an asexual person. You cannot say that "asexual" means "no desire for sex" while "asexuality" suddenly becomes the umbrella term for many different things. Asexuality is the sexual orientation where someone has no desire for sex. Period.

 

Sexuality is all on a spectrum, and asexuality/asexual individuals is one point on that spectrum. While people may relate to asexuality, the point of this discussion is to finally define the term in such a way that people, asexuals and sexual alike, can understand what it actually means. Many people have mentioned that using "sexual attraction" in the definition is confusing and unclear, thereby making that definition lose its utility. A definition is only a definition if it helps clarify what something means, not confuses someone further.

 

And on that note, if our end goal is clarification of a definition, and as a result of clarifying that definition people realize they are not asexual, how is that seen as exclusionary? It's clarifying a term so that more people can understand what it means in a clear and succinct manner.

 

This is begging the question; you have to start with how and why people want to identify as asexual, and work from there. A clear definition is not always going to provide the best reflection of messy human psychology.

Furthermore, I'm advocating including both sexual attraction and sexual desire within the definition, in other to recognize that some people resonate with one more than the other. Plenty of people, such as myself, don't find "sexual attraction" confusing, and approach asexuality in that way.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Pramana said:

But the reasons why an idea isn't popular might offer some insights into whether or not that idea is any good (in this case – conflict with science and the alienation of many people on the asexuality spectrum are major deficiencies).

Again, I disagree with your wording. It should not be "many people on the asexuality spectrum", but "some people currently claiming to be asexual". You are, again, implicitly saying that just because they say they're asexual, that makes it true. And I will forever reject that assumption.

 

The alienation of those people, and the invalidation of their choice of identity, is exactly what would make the change good.

 

I still hold that the main reasons why it's not popular are:

1) people are too lazy/conservative to work for change

2) people aren't interested in this site serving its actual stated purpose (education)

3) people selfishly feel entitled to validation, regardless of logical coherency

 

None of these are reasons I consider ethically justified.

[Pramana]

24 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Nope. There are plenty of people who use the term but love sex. I have seen several times asexuals who claim even though I'm asexual, that doesn't mean I don't want sex. They use the lack of sexual attraction as their reasoning for identifying as ace. It is way more common than you think. 

Alright, but that makes sense given the scientific understanding of the concept. They are pursuing sexual relationships in a way that is missing one major component of how people normally do so (sexual attraction). Presumably, they find this is causing a problem for them, so they have a reason to use the term. Unless you think they just want to call themselves asexual for fun?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Pramana said:

This is begging the question; you have to start with how and why people want to identify as asexual, and work from there.

No, no, no, and Hell no. That's completely the wrong place to start. 

 

This, right there, is why I can't blame anyone for doubting that "asexuality" is a valid orientation. because what you're selling here definitely, absolutely is not how a valid orientation works.

 

And to stand for this nonsense while striving for inclusion into LGBT+ is implicit homophobia of AVEN. AVEN is implying that being gay is a choice, and then encourages whining when LGBT+ groups make a "no aces allowed" policy.

 

It's pathetic, really.

 

I never thought I'd agree with a certain, permabanned user... but AVEN really has become a clown forum.

[Arctangent]

3 hours ago, Pramana said:

I believe @Xenobot has made this point earlier in this thread – I would second it here – which is that a compromise option whereby desire is included within the definition has a much higher chance of success than a desire-only alternative. A desire-only definition doesn't have enough scientific support, nor would it be sufficiently inclusive (it would alienate those who resonate more with the attraction aspect, and it leaves out sex-favourable asexuals and at least some gray-asexuals and demisexuals). There is recognition, though, that a lack of sexual desire is relevant to asexuality, and that thinking of asexuality in terms of a lack of sexual desire is more intuitive for some people. That is why I, at least, have been advocating an and/or definition, and that probably has a lot to do with why there haven't been vocal attraction-only supporters recently.

I admit that the and/or definition sounds a bit clunky, but human psychology is messy. It's not likely that there'll be one airtight logically rigid definition which can capture everything that fits within the concept. Therefore, contrary to what some have suggested, a definition that is more general and vague and that produces some overlap may well be the preferable one.

Otherwise, I also don't mind your suggestion to have parallel definitions: that asexuality could be viewed as the lack of sexual attraction or it could be viewed as the lack of sexual desire.

My reasons for keeping sexual attraction within the definition are well known; I don't wish to repeat them again. But I would support working towards a comprise as described above, if there's interest in doing so. That sort of compromise proposal has a far more realistic chance of changing the status quo.

Yes, I do remember that previous exchange. It's probably true that if the definition could be changed, the and/or definition has a better shot. It's closer to what we already have. I'm still not a huge fan of it for reasons that I've outlined before, but I suppose it's better than the current definition. (It also wouldn't fit very well in the banner at the top of the front page, but I guess that's a minor aesthetic consideration. :P) I get the impression that the BoD doesn't want to change the definition at all, though. From what I've seen, they haven't explicitly come out against the desire-based definition, but they have upheld the current one and implied that it's not going to change (at least for the time being). I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that, but I've seen these debates go on for years without any meaningful changes in AVEN's official stance, so... I'm not holding my breath.

 

If the official definition is not up for debate, then I'd prefer that parallel definitions are presented somewhere in the FAQ. Several asexuals on this thread have said that it would have been helpful for them to know of the desire-based interpretation from the get-go. I think @Snow Cone raises an excellent point about the fact that a purely attraction-based definition can be viewed as deterring people who could identify as asexual on the basis of lack of desire for partnered sex, but get confused by the concept of sexual attraction. It seems to me that it would align with AVEN's stated goal of inclusiveness to add information in the FAQ about an alternative definition of asexuality that many people in the community find useful.

 

I would hope they'd be willing to consider that option. I don't think it contradicts with any of the values they've stated, and it doesn't even require that they change the official definition. If even that is too much to ask, well... I might give up on these debates for a while (or even go back on indefinite hiatus).

[Pramana]

Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

No, no, no, and Hell no. That's completely the wrong place to start. 

 

This, right there, is why I can't blame anyone for doubting that "asexuality" is a valid orientation. because what you're selling here definitely, absolutely is not how a valid orientation works.

 

And to stand for this nonsense while striving for inclusion into LGBT+ is implicit homophobia of AVEN. AVEN is implying that being gay is a choice, and then encourages whining when LGBT+ groups make a "no aces allowed" policy.

 

It's pathetic, really.

Asexuality to a large extent is a product of our oversexualized culture, which makes it relevant for people who don't fit in to form an alternative community. That's what asexuality is about, and definitions should reflect that. Asexuality is not a product of someone's choosing to make a definition. That wouldn't make any sense. What matters is why people identify with the concept.

The reality is that I've spent a great deal of time arguing against a minority view which has little chance of success. On account of that fact, I thought I would see if some people holding that view would be interested in working towards a compromise proposal (I say compromise, but it's actually my preferred definition). If not, then I don't have much more to say on the matter.

[Tofer]

This thread is moving so fast, some of the posts I want to respond to are very old now. And I have a lot to say that is not in direct response to existing posts.  I'll probably never catch up because I can't devote too much time and because I need to spend time thinking and editing before I'm ready to put something up.

 

But I'll do what I can.

 

17 hours ago, Xenobot said:

 

20 hours ago, Tofer said:

Before the asexuality community developed the discourse of "types of attraction" (sexual, romantic, sensual, platonic, aesthetic) the word "attraction" was used commonly, in a meaning that was fairly consistent at least since the 19th century, with "sexual" only implied. The reason the asexuality community added "sexual" as a modifier was to distinguish it from asexual types of attraction. Definition of the asexual types of attraction is the innovation of AVEN, not the existence of (sexual) attraction.

It's actually not terribly uncommon to hear about various types of attraction in psychology. Sexual orientation is frequently defined as an often enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction. I haven't personally heard aesthetic or sensual attraction used in the field of psychology, however. I'd be curious to know if AVEN took any inspiration from psychology there, or if it was just a purely intuitive coincidence.

 

I see I need to unpack what I was trying to say. I may not be totally correct, but I'll try to explain what I'm thinking.

 

In the English language, at least, "attraction" has long been used (commonly without a modifier) to define sexual orientation. E.g., heterosexual orientation has long been described as attraction to the "opposite" sex (when sex was assumed to be purely binary), and homosexual orientation as attraction to the same sex. 

 

Before the sexual revolution, and even after it in more conservative contexts, sexuality was commonly talked about with some indirection. "Attraction" is a word that does not directly denote sexuality, but in certain contexts, saying "attraction" could get the point across as referring to a sexual feeling, without the speaker needing to feel embarrassed by speaking directly about sex.

 

In the context of psychology (where talking directly about sex has long been more direct) the motivation is different. My reading is that before the asexuality community developed its discourse (and often still, when the asexuality discourse is not in view), reference to emotional and romantic attraction does not posit separate phenomena that are non-sexual. Rather emotional, romantic and sexual attraction are thought to be different aspects of the single phenomenon of attraction between persons whose sexuality is an intrinsic part of them and their relations with each other. 

 

This is also related to the influence of Freud on psychology, especially through most of the 20th century. For Freud, everything is consciously or unconsciously sexual.

 

What seems different to me about the discourse in the asexuality community is that each type of attraction is thought of as a separate phenomenon, standing on its own. All of the attraction types other than sexual attraction stand apart as something purely non-sexual. Recognizing romantic/aromantic as a dimension separate from sexuality is what made it possible for the aromantic community to exist, and all the (a)romantic orientations and identities. This is something that didn't exist (correct me if I'm wrong) before AVEN introduced its discourse on the various types of non-sexual attraction.

 

To me, this is an indication of our culture moving away from Freud's influence.

I have a lot more to say about how all this relates to various other posts in this thread and my personal history, but I'll leave that for future posts.

 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

39 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

This demisexual is saying that I am sexual and that there is no asexual spectrum, and that asexuals don't want sex with anyone ever in contrast to demisexuals, who sometimes want sex. 

 for you regardless.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Asexuality to a large extent is a product of our oversexualized culture, which makes it relevant for people who don't fit in to form an alternative community. That's what asexuality is about, and definitions should reflect that.

That's simply not compatible with the claim that it were a valid sexual orientation.

 

If you agree that what you call "asexuality" is definitely not a valid orientation, and should thus stay far, far away from any association with LGBT+, now is the chance for you to say so loud and clear.