Jump to content

Definition discussion.


Ashmedai

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Law of Circles said:

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).

I would support that. I agree that "lack of sexual desire" should be given more visibility.

I suspect part of the reason why the BoD is reluctant to change the definition to include "sexual desire" is that many of the people advocating such a change also oppose the self-identification principle, and thus want a definition that is both more exclusionary and that is applied in a more exclusionary matter. I don't think there's much question that if you know you lack desire for partnered sex, then you can determine you're asexual, and so I agree that adding it (either through an and/or definition or parallel definitions) would enhance education and clarity. The problem is that so many vocal desire-only supporters think that people who identify with asexuality through the attraction part of the definition aren't really asexual, and my impression is that the BoD and a majority of the community won't accept that on ethical grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

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.

I disagree. In my view, sexual orientations are social constructs.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.  

 

 

 

 

Yes, absolutely this! I, too, am an asexual woman who has never desired to have partnered sex. For most of my life I only had the word "frigid" available as an identifier for what I now know is my sexual orientation:asexual.  As I said in another thread, "frigid" was an ugly, demoralizing, and vicious word to live with, especially in a society that is so hyper-sexual towards women and so, in an effort to be "normal" I ended up marrying and spending over ten years pretending desire for sexual intercourse that I just did not (and do not) have as an innate part of my being (that involved a lot of lying...and a lot of lubricant). There are a lot of gay men and women who can certainly understand and relate to what it was like to live a lie with a "beard", and how damaging that is to both parties in such a relationship. 

 

I wish the top echelon of AVEN would understand that a clear and concise definition of asexuality is imperative. And no, it should not be whatever anyone "feels" like defining it as...that just defeats the whole purpose and, frankly, spits on the face of all who have had to suffer and struggle with understanding why they (we) lack the innate desire to engage in partnered sex. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
9 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. 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.

No it frikkin' isn't, that's like saying being gay is a reaction to over-heterosexual society. That's such a dumb to say when you consider the hardships gay people have been (and still do) through. Asexuality is an orientation, not a lifestyle or a fad. Plus how would it be a reaction to oversexualisation when these so called 'sex loving aces' are just as sexual as 'normal' people?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 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. 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.

That's a rather bold claim to make. I personally disagree that our culture is "oversexualized." I think our society has conflicting norms about sex and sexuality - people who are considered "not sexual enough" (like asexuals) catch flak, but so do people who are considered "too sexual" or otherwise sexually deviant. There are problems in both directions (the slut vs. prude/frigid double standard is an example of this).

 

I also think that it's natural to some extent for sex and sexuality to be represented in our culture since most people do experience sexual desire/attraction. Maybe our current culture doesn't always do so in the most constructive way, but I wouldn't say that's equivalent to being "oversexualized." This is just my personal view, though.

 

Would you say that there would be fewer asexuals if our culture was less "oversexualized?"

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

I disagree. In my view, sexual orientations are social constructs.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality

I have to admit, that must have been the most enlightening post of yours re: your actual views.

 

I hope you realize that you are about as much in disagreement with the BoD/AVEN stance as I am, although our disagreements are different ones (and I'm about as far removed from your position as I am from the BoD's).

 

Maybe you'll live long enough as a member of this site to become a pain in the BoD's asses, too... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Anthracite_Impreza said:

No it frikkin' isn't, that's like saying being gay is a reaction to over-heterosexual society. That's such a dumb to say when you consider the hardships gay people have been (and still do) through. Asexuality is an orientation, not a lifestyle or a fad. Plus how would it be a reaction to oversexualisation when these so called 'sex loving aces' are just as sexual as 'normal' people?!

How come people didn't start identifying as asexual until about fifteen years ago? Partly the internet, and partly a legacy of the sexual revolution.

Sexual orientations have historical origins:


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/nov/10/history.society

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
Just now, Pramana said:

How come people didn't start identifying as asexual until about fifteen years ago? Partly the internet, and partly a legacy of the sexual revolution.

Sexual orientations have historical origins:


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/nov/10/history.society

The words are new, not the concepts. Does that mean horses never existed before there were words for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Law of Circles said:

That's a rather bold claim to make. I personally disagree that our culture is "oversexualized." I think our society has conflicting norms about sex and sexuality - people who are considered "not sexual enough" (like asexuals) catch flak, but so do people who are considered "too sexual" or otherwise sexually deviant. There are problems in both directions (the slut vs. prude/frigid double standard is an example of this).

 

I also think that it's natural to some extent for sex and sexuality to be represented in our culture since most people do experience sexual desire/attraction. Maybe our current culture doesn't always do so in the most constructive way, but I wouldn't say that's equivalent to being "oversexualized." This is just my personal view, though.

 

Would you say that there would be fewer asexuals if our culture was less "oversexualized?"

Yes, for example, as I discussed before with respect to demisexuality, which probably wouldn't exist in a culture where the expectation is that people avoid sex before marriage.

It may be better to say highly sexualized than oversexualized, if the latter appears to be too much of a value judgment.

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

How come people didn't start identifying as asexual until about fifteen years ago? Partly the internet, and partly a legacy of the sexual revolution.

Because back in my day, the word used was "frigid".

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zendalis said:

I wish the top echelon of AVEN would understand that a clear and concise definition of asexuality is imperative. And no, it should not be whatever anyone "feels" like defining it as...that just defeats the whole purpose and, frankly, spits on the face of all who have had to suffer and struggle with understanding why they (we) lack the innate desire to engage in partnered sex. 

This argument is reminiscent of people who say that asexuals are not LGBT+ because they aren't oppressed enough. just because some people on the asexual spectrum have problems which are different – or not as pressing – as others, doesn't mean their identities are less legitimate. It's not a competition to see who's had it worse.

I experience low levels of of sexual desire and sexual attraction, but I'm too sex-repulsed to even compromise sexually in a relationship. It's not as though one kind of problem is the "right" asexual problem, which needs be validated at the expense of others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zendalis said:

Because back in my day, the word used was "frigid".

Right, I'm not saying the phenomenon didn't exist, but it would have been conceived differently. In a culture where marriage is more of a business contract, sexual/romantic interest may not have been as relevant. In the past, it was also much more common for people who wanted to opt out of mainstream society to join religious institutions. Those opportunities have dwindled.

Furthermore, I'd suggest that the contours of the asexual spectrum may expand and contract as social norms surrounding sexuality change.


Consider how homosexuality was viewed in ancient Greece, as another example of how cultural frameworks can produce radically different conceptualizations of human sexuality.

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

The words are new, not the concepts. Does that mean horses never existed before there were words for them?

No, but the interpretation and experience of a phenomenon may be radically different from one culture to another. In ancient Greece, for example, homosexuality may not have been experienced in a way that caused social conflict, so it may not have been relevant to talk about it in the way we do today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pramana, before you go on... please realize that your idea/definition of "sexual orientation" is incompatible with how the term is used by the overwhelming majority of people on this site (including the BoD).

 

 

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

I experience low levels of of sexual desire and sexual attraction, but I'm too sex-repulsed to even compromise sexually in a relationship. It's not as though one kind of problem is the "right" asexual problem, which needs be validated at the expense of others.

Interesting. Having no innate desire for partnered sex is, off course not the same as experiencing sex repulsion. The question would lie in why you are sex-repulsed, and only you can answer that question...and the follow up one, which would be: if you were not sex-repulsed, would you desire to have partnered sex? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zendalis said:

Interesting. Having no innate desire for partnered sex is, off course not the same as experiencing sex repulsion. The question would lie in why you are sex-repulsed, and only you can answer that question...and the follow up one, which would be: if you were not sex-repulsed, would you desire to have partnered sex? 

This.

 

Sex repulsed sexuals are a real thing, and are not the same as asexuals. They are sexual, not ace.

 

Note that I'm saying this as a romance-repulsed romantic - I may well wish that I was aro, but I am most definitely romantic (at least naturally... antidep meds reduced my propensity to get crushes/have romantic feelings to near zero; still, I have no doubt they'd reappear within weeks, if not days, after going off the meds.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

@Pramana, before you go on... please realize that your idea/definition of "sexual orientation" is incompatible with how the term is used by the overwhelming majority of people on this site (including the BoD).

I realize that! My views on the definition and the self-identification principle are not dependent on these further arguments, and may be getting off topic for this thread. I would, however, eventually like to push discourse in that direction.

I realize these views are controversial. But I'd suggest it's not that radical to say that the contours of gray-asexuality, in particular, may be affected by the prevailing social norms surrounding sexuality. Whereas non-gray-asexuality may be something that people are more hardwired towards.

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

It may be better to say highly sexualized than oversexualized, if the latter appears to be too much of a value judgment.

Highly sexualized compared to what? On what scale? Even if viewed as a social construct, there are so many norms and behaviors associated with sexuality that it doesn't seem like something that can be measured so simply. A society can be highly sexually open in some ways yet repressed in others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zendalis said:

Interesting. Having no innate desire for partnered sex is, off course not the same as experiencing sex repulsion. The question would lie in why you are sex-repulsed, and only you can answer that question...and the follow up one, which would be: if you were not sex-repulsed, would you desire to have partnered sex? 

I agree. I think you can get to asexuality or gray-asexuality in different ways. I'm not entirely sure why I'm sex-repulsed; it probably has a lot to do with personality traits and OCD. If I wasn't sex-repulsed, my level of interest in partnered sex would probably still be a lot lower than most people's. I prefer to say gray-asexual because it reflects how I actually function. Sex-repulsed sexual would be more confusing to people. Plus, I don't feel very sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Law of Circles said:

Highly sexualized compared to what? On what scale? Even if viewed as a social construct, there are so many norms and behaviors associated with sexuality that it doesn't seem like something that can be measured so simply. A society can be highly sexually open in some ways yet repressed in others.

I'm thinking in terms of post-Sexual Revolution culture. It seems fairly common for psychologists and sociologists to discuss asexuality in this way. That is how Anthony Bogaert frames his research.

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

No, but the interpretation and experience of a phenomenon may be radically different from one culture to another. In ancient Greece, for example, homosexuality may not have been experienced in a way that caused social conflict, so it may not have been relevant to talk about it in the way we do today.

That doesn't mean it's still not a thing. People still have innate orientations for things regardless of their society, or else how the hell would I have ended up objectum asexual? It's hardly encouraged, it's not even known most of the time.

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

That doesn't mean it's still not a thing. People still have innate orientations for things regardless of their society, or else how the hell would I have ended up objectum asexual? It's hardly encouraged, it's not even known most of the time.

Right, but perception makes a significant difference for how something is experienced. And then consider how boundaries can move with respect to borderline cases. For example, demisexuality as an attachment style has probably always existed, but it didn't become relevant to talk about as a distinct sexuality until it began to conflict with social norms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pramana, you've consistently said throughout this whole discussion on many threads that you believe that those who are/have been consistently asexual are 1) overwhelmingly most accurately defined as not being sexually attracted, 2) in the minority, 3) not caring about being supportive or inclusive, and 4) anti-academic if we don't agree with your claims about research studies and wish you to listen to our quite extensive personal experience.  Now, very recently, you've claimed that orientations are societally created.  

 

These are all your opinions.  You have obviously wished us to confirm your opinions, and except for two members, we can't do that because our experience and observation has been quite different.

 

I've been asexual all my life.  I know that now because I learned about the word "asexual", read of others' experiences on AVEN, and looked back over 40+ years of sexual experience.  I was not influenced in that by society.  I was not influenced in that by wanting to be a special snowflake.  I was not influenced in that by reading abstracts of academic articles.   And I was not influenced in that by the so-called sexual revolution -- in fact, that only caused me to try harder to enjoy and want sex, which of course was unsuccessful because I didn't.

 

TL:DR:  You just don't get it.  

 

 

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
On 3/25/2017 at 0:43 PM, Pramana said:

To briefly reiterate points I've made earlier:

1. Self-identification – people who feel they're asexual spectrum want to be able to use the language they believe bests reflects their identity and enables them to most effectively communicate with other people. Therefore, telling them they're not asexual but that it's okay because they can hang out with us anyway is not sufficient. It's effectively saying that you can associate with us but you can't use our terms because we'd be embarrassed by you if you did, which is not exactly welcoming. A concern for preserving the public image of asexuality does not provide a factual or ethical basis on which to tell people that they are not asexual.

2. Sexual attraction – I support it because some people identify with asexuality through the concept, science currently employs the concept to discuss orientation (and has done so from long before AVEN, while AVEN's choice to adopt the term is not the only reason psychology uses it to describe asexuality), and using a popularly accepted concept has pragmatic political utility.

I know this reply is late (life got away from me) but I just want to point out that the reason so many people self-identify via attraction is because that's the definition we gave them. It's not like thousands of people all came up with 'I don't feel sexual attraction' independently and formed a group - we gave them that language.


Also, the desire-based definition doesn't stop people from self-identifying, it only makes it so they can do so more accurately and be more informed in their decision. I don't understand how anyone could possibly think that's a bad thing.

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

How come people didn't start identifying as asexual until about fifteen years ago? Partly the internet, and partly a legacy of the sexual revolution.

Sexual orientations have historical origins:


https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/nov/10/history.society

Well there's a song from way back in the 80s that describes an attractive girl who has no interest in sex as "asexual". The singer is a man who is in love with her but she doesn't want to have sex with him because she's asexual (according to him). He states that she "sets him on fire" etc, so she's clearly very attractive. He's not defining her asexuality as "genderless" but as her not wanting to have sex with him (he says "making love never crosses her mind" "she's not the kind of girl who plays with boys" "her lights are on but no one's home downstairs" etc) I personally even think he's referencing her masturbating ("her only interest is electronic toys"), and there does seem to be sexual innuendo in the song ("she says she'll be right over but you know she'll never come") but just not having any desire to actually *have* sex with him ("I understand that she got no desire, I just wish she wouldn't set me on fire")

 

So while it may have not been used officially as an orientation term until David Jay started AVEN, some people do actually seem to have been using it to define someone who has no interest in sexual activity for some time. I'll see if I can find the song and link it (I'm on my phone as usual, the kids are watching a movie on my comp.. not entirely sure how to link YouTube vids on the phone)

 

 

Ooooh it seems to have worked. This song sounds way older than the 80s to me (edit: in tone, not the words :P ) but yeah apparently it's from the 80's from the info myself and others could find.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pan. said:

This song sounds way older than the 80s to me, but yeah apparently it's from the 80's from the info myself and others could find.

Pretty sure it's just retro-style, and 80s-ish is correct... there are a good few verses where I reaaalllly doubt the text would have made it through in the 50s or 60s... :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Pretty sure it's just retro-style, and 80s-ish is correct... there are a good few verses where I reaaalllly doubt the text would have made it through in the 50s or 60s... :lol: 

That must be exactly why there were no asexuals in the 50s and 60s. :o

 

Mysticus, you've figured it all out!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

Pretty sure it's just retro-style, and 80s-ish is correct... there are a good few verses where I reaaalllly doubt the text would have gone through in the 50s or 60s... :lol: 

Haha yeah I don't even know if they used some of that terminology back then :P they did a really good job of making it sound 60ish, but yeah someone in another thread here (or under the video, I can't remember?) found an old article which referenced this song in 85. I can't go and search it on my phone sadly, but regardless.. the 80's is a pretty long time ago now. If it was a common enough term for him to use it in this song so casually, I wonder if it was actually used relatively regularly to define people with no desire to have sex, at least in some places? I don't know.. I do like the song though :P

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

This.

 

Sex repulsed sexuals are a real thing, and are not the same as asexuals. They are sexual, not ace.

 

Note that I'm saying this as a romance-repulsed romantic - I may well wish that I was aro, but I am most definitely romantic (at least naturally... antidep meds reduced my propensity to get crushes/have romantic feelings to near zero; still, I have no doubt they'd reappear within weeks, if not days, after going off the meds.)

I have to admit that I have often wished I was aro (you know, because the grass is always greener...;) ) Being asexual, with romantic secondary traits can get lonely, when I do dwell on the fact that my chances of finding another human being who would also consider hand-holding, occasional cuddling, and strictly closed-mouth kissing to be the culmination of physical intimacy, are akin to finding that proverbial "needle in a haystack" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
18 minutes ago, Pan. said:
Spoiler

 

 

Oh my god, how have I never heard this before? This is amazing. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...