Jump to content

Definition discussion.


Ashmedai

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

It's not an opinion that not all sexuals "look at people and get horny" or "have a sexual reaction to aspects of other people" or "find people sexy to look at" or however you want to define sexual attraction, it's a FACT that they don't all experience that. They just don't.

It's not surprising that many sexuals would say they don't experience that, because those are narrow, cliched depictions of sexual attraction with seem to have become the focus on AVEN discussions. But I have yet to see evidence of sexuals saying they have no preferences in terms of sexual partners, based on characteristics such as gender, appearance, personality, etc. Here is a Psychology Today article which presents a more complex picture of the phenomenon:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201606/3-vital-elements-attraction


 

2 hours ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

AVEN's "values" are directly invalidating the experience of many, many sexual people (especially the average sexual woman) for the sake of validating people who wish to be asexual based on however they want to define it. This is why this isn't so much an issue about the definition itself, but how the values surrounding the definition are massively harming the asexual communities relationship with the general sexual population, and harming massively any efforts at asexuality ever being taken seriously as a legitimate sexual orientation. This is what myself and certain others were trying to explain in the "values" thread.. but apparently what we had to say wasn't gelling enough with the tone they wanted in that thread so they shut that line of convo down. 

 

If we keep going like this, asexuality will be viewed as something to be mocked and ridiculed (as it already is in many places online).. AVEN is contributing to that - well, directly creating that issue - with its values surrounding the definition of asexuality: Values which directly invalidate many aspects of normal, everyday sexuality.

I have yet to find a publication which supports the claim that average sexual women and many other sexual people don't experience sexual attraction. In contrast, here's the opening quote from a recent publication on the topic:
 

“Sexual attraction plays a major role in most people’s lives. Not only are people often concerned about their own sexual attractiveness, but also they are acutely aware of the sexual attractiveness of other people. Sexual attraction shows its importance in our lives by typically guiding us to those who become our sexual, romantic, or lifelong partners. But it also fills our awareness as we go about our daily lives. People we pass in the street, work colleagues, classmates, and family friends, all present themselves to out awareness in terms of their degree of sexual attractiveness.

This is not to say that people appear to us only in this way. Nor is it to say everyone is always trying to make himself or herself sexually attractive. It simply means that one of the basic ways in which we experience others is in terms of their sexual attractiveness.” (Sexual Attraction: The Psychology of Allure, James Giles, 2015, page 1)

I don't understand why following a concept of sexual attraction which appears to be far and away the predominant one in the academic literature and in media reporting on the topic would cause massive harm to the relationship between the asexual community and the general public. Rather, I would think that we should be following scholarly sources if we hope to be taken seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sexual attraction definition needs to be replaced because no one can agree on the meaning. That itself is a good enough reason to abandoned it. When I first entered the community, sexual attraction meant being turned on by a person's psychical appearance. So you can like sex and be asexual as long as you aren't tuned on by that. But wait, as many sexuals explained, many of them don't experience a sexual response when they see someone they are attracted to, they want to have sex because they have an urge for sex with people they love or just want a good time. A sexual didn't need to be turned on by a person's looks to want sex... which makes sense.There are people who are turned on, and only turned on, by a person's intelligence. There are people who can only have sex while acting out their fetish. People who only want sex for emotional reasons. The sexual attraction definition fails in that what was suppose to separate sexuals and asexuals in the first place, doesn't take into account the diversity of sexual behavior. 

 

This is why you have so many instances of confused young people who think they are asexual when they clearly want sex as much as any person. "I don't experience sexual attraction, but I do want to have sex. I must be asexual!" 

 

So what exactly differs between a sexual and a asexual? One wants sex, the other doesn't. Defining asexuality as a person who doesn't want partnered sex under any circumstance takes away the confusion of the old definition because that meaning is clear and to the point. This meaning doesn't create the many battles that sexual attraction does since half the time people argue what it even means. This definition also isn't vague. It is straight to the point. For instance, saying asexuality is a person who isn't interested in sex is way too vague because than people would start arguing about what degrees of disinterest is asexual and what isn't( you know how this forum can get). All a person has to ask themselves is if they ever want sex. If so, not asexual. Doesn't matter if they just want sex once a month or five times a year. Of course, there can be degrees to it. If you are a person who wants sex very rarely than they are grey.

 

I hope AVEN seriously considers making a change to the asexual definition. It will take a while but it will definitely catch on if they make the official change.

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

It's not surprising that many sexuals would say they don't experience that, because those are narrow, cliched depictions of sexual attraction with seem to have become the focus on AVEN discussions. But I have yet to see evidence of sexuals saying they have no preferences in terms of sexual partners, based on characteristics such as gender, appearance, personality, etc. Here is a Psychology Today article which presents a more complex picture of the phenomenon:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201606/3-vital-elements-attraction


 

I have yet to find a publication which supports the claim that average sexual women and many other sexual people don't experience sexual attraction. In contrast, here's the opening quote from a recent publication on the topic:
 

“Sexual attraction plays a major role in most people’s lives. Not only are people often concerned about their own sexual attractiveness, but also they are acutely aware of the sexual attractiveness of other people. Sexual attraction shows its importance in our lives by typically guiding us to those who become our sexual, romantic, or lifelong partners. But it also fills our awareness as we go about our daily lives. People we pass in the street, work colleagues, classmates, and family friends, all present themselves to out awareness in terms of their degree of sexual attractiveness.

This is not to say that people appear to us only in this way. Nor is it to say everyone is always trying to make himself or herself sexually attractive. It simply means that one of the basic ways in which we experience others is in terms of their sexual attractiveness.” (Sexual Attraction: The Psychology of Allure, James Giles, 2015, page 1)

I don't understand why following a concept of sexual attraction which appears to be far and away the predominant one in the academic literature and in media reporting on the topic would cause massive harm to the relationship between the asexual community and the general public. Rather, I would think that we should be following scholarly sources if we want to be taken seriously.

To make the issue very, very basic so it's easily understood. The following examples are all things I have seen many, many times on AVEN, Tumblr, YouTube, and other places where asexuals congregate. There are those who identify in the following ways, based on the sexual attraction definition:

 

There are people who self-identify as asexual who say "I desire sex but I'm asexual because while I love having sex, I don't really care about appearance or gender, so I don't experience sexual attraction. I desire sex because sex is enjoyable, it's a fun bonding activity, and I like to have it with friends"

 

So you respond "you're saying, you'd literally have sex with anyone no matter how smelly or gross or scary they are?"

 

Response: "no no, I have to trust them, I like having sex with my friends as a fun bonding activity. I just don't care about appearance. It's the friendship bond that matters, not appearance, so I'm asexual"

 

The issue here is that this person is assuming all sexual people want sex based on appearance, which is where the sexual attraction definition gets you. No, I'm not saying someone like this isn't allowed to ID as ace, but that there are many, many sexual people who enjoy sex with people they are close to without preference for appearance, that's actually quite common. This idea of asexuality is coming from a warped idea that all sexuals choose sex partners based on who they find attractive it are constantly on the lookout for attractive people or whatever.. which comes from the term "sexual attraction" being in the definition. The vast majority of people assume it has something to do with a sexual reaction to appearance. Just because YOU don't think that, doesn't change the fact that almost everyone who sees the term thinks it means a sexual reaction to appearance and that they base their ideas of asexuality and sexuality around that misconception.

 

There are others who ID as ace because, for example, they enjoy sex as a bonding appearance but don't get horny when they look at their partner. To them their partner is a person that they love, and sex is a fun, intimate bonding experience that can be enjoyed as a result of that love. Again, this is based on the assumption (perpetuated by AVEN) that sexuals look at people and get horny and want sex as a result of that. When no, there are many, many sexual people who don't "look at people and get horny" but who do desire sex as an intimate bonding experience. Many women especially don't look at people and get all wet between the legs and want to have sex with them just because their appearance made them so horny.. but do desire sex as a romantic bonding experience. I've worked with prostitutes who have never once looked at someone and got a sexual response from that person's appearance, but do desire sex as a romantic bonding experience with someone they love. And prostitutes who get wet between their legs at seeing random clients in the waiting room then orgasm while having paid sex with those clients. And prostitutes who literally don't care about the appearance of the clients, they'll orgasm regardless (no, this does not make them asexual) 

 

I'm just saying, not all women look at people and get horny or have a sexual reaction to appearance or even have preference to appearance, or are on the lookout for people who meet a certain level of attractiveness. Not all men do either of course. Some people choose partners based on personality traits, humour, whatever. All sorts of things. It's not always about measuring levels of someone attractiveness on a sexual scale, or however else one wants to define sexual attraction.

 

Then you get people who say they are asexual because they will have sex with almost anyone who is willing, they just love sex but don't care about people. They just want sex, they will take casual sex, sex with strangers, sex in groups, whatever. But who it's with just doesn't matter. Now again, this is based on the idea that EVERY sexual person only has sex based on a choice of gender or aspects of appearance or something. When no, there are many sexuals (especially in the kink community) who get off on having sex with literally anyone no matter who they are or what they like, and have literally no preference to appearance or gender. Just because these sexuals are a minority doesn't somehow make their experience irrelevant or make them asexual. Aesthetic preference does not mean sexual attraction, yet many in this community seem to think that's what it means.

 

And even then, every time I've met someone who identifies as ace saying they desire sex for pleasure, they will still always have standards and preferences as to who they have sex with (in the same way almost any sexual does).. like, can't be too fat. Or can't be too smelly. Or can't be dangerous. Or has to be a friend or established lover. The reason they're identifying as ace though is BECAUSE they don't look at people and think "she's got nice tits, I want to fuck her". They're ASSUMING that all sexual people share an experience of looking at certain people and wanting to fuck them. when no, they don't. But they can freely assume this on AVEN and base their asexuality on that, because AVEN refuses to take a stance on what in fact makes someone asexual, aside from an apparent lack of sexual attraction, which people can define however they want. Now again, I'm not saying that person can't ID as ace, I'm saying that there are thousands (millions) of sexuals out there just like that (who desire sed for pleasure, without giving two hoots about appearance). Just because they're a minority or you hear about them less in the media doesn't somehow make their experience irrelevant or invalidate them as sexuals.

 

So, how are YOU defining sexual attraction in a way that applies to all sexuals but not asexuals who desire sex with other people for pleasure, that's what I want to know?

 

At the end of the day, it's easiest and simplest to say "asexuality is a lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure".. because that can't be misinterpreted or confused in the way the term sexual attraction can, which leads to sexuals being demonized they way they are on AVEN. On AVEN, you're pretty much asexual Unless you find people attractive in a way that makes you want to have sex with them. You can pick apart the definition of sexual attraction all you want, but I'm trying to explain how the majority of people in the community interpret the term.

 

“Sexual attraction plays a major role in most people’s lives. Not only are people often concerned about their own sexual attractiveness, but also they are acutely aware of the sexual attractiveness of other people. Sexual attraction shows its importance in our lives by typically guiding us to those who become our sexual, romantic, or lifelong partners. But it also fills our awareness as we go about our daily lives. People we pass in the street, work colleagues, classmates, and family friends, all present themselves to out awareness in terms of their degree of sexual attractiveness.



This is not to say that people appear to us only in this way. Nor is it to say everyone is always trying to make himself or herself sexually attractive. It simply means that one of the basic ways in which we experience others is in terms of their sexual attractiveness.” (Sexual Attraction: The Psychology of Allure, James Giles, 2015, page 1)

 

Yes that is a way sexual attraction is commonly experienced by many males, far fewer females experience it that way. Skullery Maid herself as a very vocal sexual on AVEN said multiple times she's never experienced it like that. But regardless, just because many sexual people may be like this (I've met enough to know that many are not) doesn't make all those who aren't like that, asexual. That's the thing. Every time someone tries to define it, they're lumping ALL sexuals into one specific category which they don't all fit. By that definition, I and certain other sexuals on AVEN are asexual. But no, we're not. We're just sexuals in a minority that does indeed exist. We do desire sex under certain circumstances in certain ways, but we aren't all walking around evaluating random people on their sexiness level or trying to meet a certain sexiness level for others or anything of the sort - I know quite a few sexual females on AVEN pretty much just like me, but haven't talked to enough of the currently active sexual males to know how they feel on the matter. We have in front of us first-hand examples of how that "scholarly article" does not apply to ALL sexual people. Just because it applies to many sexuals does not mean all sexual people experience what James Giles is defining. 

 

All sexuals though, desire partnered sex for pleasure under some circumstances. That's a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, nataliemae said:

I actually laughed when I read this. I've wondered whether some of the people on here are feigning ignorance when it comes to the concept of sexual attraction. Even if you don't experience sexual attraction yourself, it is unlikely that you wouldn't connect why others are reacting to things that are very clearly meant to be sexy/sexual. Unless you grew up living in some remote part of an Asian country (or something) where you were completely removed from media-driven societies, it just sounds like bullshit.

Way to invalidate the sexual members of AVEN who don't, in fact, experience "sexual attraction" and who have tried to explain it's their desire for partnered sex that defines their sexuality, not certain qualities or characteristics in  the people that "make them want to have sex" T_T 

 

Not all sexual people "react to things that are clearly meant to be sexual".. Some do, which is why that form of advertising works a lot of the time. But many sexuals also are offended or grossed out by, for example, seeing a half naked male or female model crawling over a car or whatever. Sexuals aren't all beasts driven by some internal lust that takes over their brains whenever they see something that's meant to be "sexy", and they aren't all attempting to look a certain way in the hopes of attracting the attention of potential sexual partners either. *sigh*.

 

This is WHY the concept of sexual attraction is such an issue, because it lumps all sexual people into this hypsersexual, extremely sexually driven little box that only a certain percentage of sexuals actually fit into. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mundane Mesh
10 hours ago, CakeSpadeAce said:

AVEN states in its FAQ that:

So if you replace "sexual attraction" in the AVEN definition, it's basically "An asexual is a person that does not desire sex". 

 

AVEN says they are the same thing, but a lot of the staff members and apparently even the people who created this site say they are very different. Could someone explain this to me please?

I remember pointing this out in the "Defining asexuality - a better definition?" - thread too! I think the biggest problem with "sexual attraction" is that there are many interpretations of what that means. My intuitive understanding of "sexual attraction" was basically the same as the official AVEN definition, which makes this whole "attraction" vs "desire" debate seem more or less like a non-issue. The problem is that not everyone shares this view of what sexual attraction actually entails, which is something that surprised me at first. But if you go by the official AVEN definitions, then changing the official definition of asexuality would be more of a clarification of the current definition (possibly with some slight differences in nuance), rather than a replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the reason some of the topics here appear to be biased against (I guess that's the right word?) or potentially non-representative of the sexual population is that some threads deliberately are meant to showcase some of the more overtly sexual moments in life. Even though I've had some girl ask me outright in a public social environment whether I liked her tits, it's not like I base all of my interactions with women on this encounter. I think it's important NOT to categorize all sexuals as these "others" who aces can't get along with. It's just that due to the nature of the site, you're gonna see a lot of posts by people who have been confronted rather aggressively by sexual events. At the same time, this is one of the only outlets for venting about this sort of stuff. On the whole, the vibe I get here (at least where I frequent) is "sometimes I don't get some people," not "sexual people are terrible and I can't ever hang out with them."

 

On the whole definition debate, while I think it's possible to refine the whole thing, at what point does the whole thing become so narrowly defined as to become completely impossible to identify with? Are we gonna need some professional diagnosis? Or is it better as a relative term (e.g. asexuality is an extreme end of a scale like absolute zero which represents a nigh impossibility)? By all means, healthy discussion is good but when does it just become a matter of pruning people who aren't "asexual enough" or slicing a small piece of pie into even more minuscule pieces. But, as previously mentioned, it's important for aces, myself included, to realize that a single sexually-charged encounter cannot be extrapolated to represent the entire population.

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

I remember pointing this out in the "Defining asexuality - a better definition?" - thread too! I think the biggest problem with "sexual attraction" is that there are many interpretations of what that means. My intuitive understanding of "sexual attraction" was basically the same as the official AVEN definition, which makes this whole "attraction" vs "desire" debate seem more or less like a non-issue. The problem is that not everyone shares this view of what sexual attraction actually entails, which is something that surprised me at first. But if you go by the official AVEN definitions, then changing the official definition of asexuality would be more of a clarification of the current definition (possibly with some slight differences in nuance), rather than a replacement.

I agree with this, though I had some doubts of my own orientation based on the official definition for a reason touched upon here:

 

14 minutes ago, nataliemae said:

being able to recognize that something is intended to be sexual, like a half naked model crawling over a car or whatever

I know when something is intended to be sexual, including things that I find visually appealing (not a naked model crawling over a car, but you get the gist). I had serious doubts based on the official definition because I enjoy some things that look sexy by all common understanding of sexiness. I just don't desire any actual sex. By some interpretations of the definition, though, that wouldn't qualify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, nataliemae said:

I never said that all sexuals react to things that are clearly sexual. I just said "others." If you are in a theater filled with people, and an actor in the film takes off his shirt, not all of the women/men in the audience are going to feel sexual attraction toward him. But some will.

 

I mean being able to recognize that something is intended to be sexual, like a half naked model crawling over a car or whatever (which I'm pretty sure I would find unappealing no matter what my orientation was). I have never experienced sexual attraction, ever, and I never miss what the intention is behind something so blatant. I'm not reacting to it like a sexual person would, it just registers in my brain as what (some) people define as sexy. The same way it would register in a sexual person's brain that it is supposed to be sexy even if they are not sexually attracted.

But you're saying you're aware that some people apparently find those things sexy? Because most asexuals are well aware of certain things are apparently interpreted by some people as sexual.. they generally just don't find it 'sexy' themselves. In the same way many sexual people also don't find those things 'sexy' but they're aware that someone is making an attempt to portray something as sexy to certain people (for example huge boobs on an anime girl, bikini models with dark tans - ew ! Men with waxed chests and big muscles *shudder*).. There are plenty of sexual people who actually find that sort of thing quite repulsive, and there are those who find it attractive. But not all sexual people have things they find particularly sexy, and some find the whole concept of 'sexiness' quite silly and pointless. Then there are asexuals who do indeed get the concept of sexiness and even find things sexy themselves - they just have no desire to have sex with anyone regardless of how 'sexy' they find them.

 

That whole 'sexiness' thing is all a pretty meaningless, irrelevant concept at the end of the day, and I learned that from a sexual guy who used to comment here a lot. He explained that what's important in defining someone's underlying, innate sexuality is their desire for partnered sexual contact ..And attraction, ideas of sexiness etc, are secondary things that some sexual people experience and some don't. What's integral to that person's sexuality though is the underlying desire for partnered sexual contact and everything else is relatively meaningless as it's all experienced so differently from sexual person to sexual person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mundane Mesh said:

I remember pointing this out in the "Defining asexuality - a better definition?" - thread too! I think the biggest problem with "sexual attraction" is that there are many interpretations of what that means. My intuitive understanding of "sexual attraction" was basically the same as the official AVEN definition, which makes this whole "attraction" vs "desire" debate seem more or less like a non-issue. The problem is that not everyone shares this view of what sexual attraction actually entails, which is something that surprised me at first. But if you go by the official AVEN definitions, then changing the official definition of asexuality would be more of a clarification of the current definition (possibly with some slight differences in nuance), rather than a replacement.

Yeah I pointed this out in that thread too! Editing the definition to a desire-based one wouldn't actually be "changing it" but clarifying it.

 

However supporters of the attraction-based defitnion only support it as far as the term "sexual attraction" and refuse to acknowledge AVEN's definition OF sexual attraction (the desire for partnered sexual conatact) as it's that exact idea they're arguing against by supporting an attraction-based definition. No wonder it's all so confusing for newbs haha.

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

I state views and then you state the same ones but act like I said something that conflicts with your views. I think you really just want an argument with someone, but I'm not interested.

Well I initially thought you were trying to say sexual people all find certain things "sexy" and react sexually to certain things, and that you were laughing at people who didn't seem to get that concept. You seemed to be saying that it sounds like "bullshit" to you when someone says they don't get or can't accurately define sexual attraction or something. When what we have been trying to say isn't that we don't understand sexual attraction, but that it's a meaningless concept that everyone actually defines differently depending on their own personal ideas and biases about sexual people. I apologise if that's not what you were saying, but that's what I was disagreeing with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

I think the two key components of the definition are that asexuality is a sexual orientation, and that asexuals never have any desire to have sex with another person. 

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

The issue here is that this person is assuming all sexual people want sex based on appearance, which is where the sexual attraction definition gets you. No, I'm not saying someone like this isn't allowed to ID as ace, but that there are many, many sexual people who enjoy sex with people they are close to without preference for appearance, that's actually quite common. This idea of asexuality is coming from a warped idea that all sexuals choose sex partners based on who they find attractive it are constantly on the lookout for attractive people or whatever.. which comes from the term "sexual attraction" being in the definition. The vast majority of people assume it has something to do with a sexual reaction to appearance. Just because YOU don't think that, doesn't change the fact that almost everyone who sees the term thinks it means a sexual reaction to appearance and that they base their ideas of asexuality and sexuality around that misconception.

This is a misinterpretation of what I argued. I claim that mot sexual people have preferences based on attraction to certain features of other persons. Those preferences may or may not be appearance based. Furthermore, I argue that sexual attraction is one cause of desire for partnered sex, not the only one. I am sure plenty of sexual people also have sex for reasons unconnected to sexual attraction. That doesn't mean they don't experience sexual attraction. If they didn't, how would they even have an orientation (whether it's heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual)?

 

3 hours ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

Yes that is a way sexual attraction is commonly experienced by many males, far fewer females experience it that way. Skullery Maid herself as a very vocal sexual on AVEN said multiple times she's never experienced it like that. But regardless, just because many sexual people may be like this (I've met enough to know that many are not) doesn't make all those who aren't like that, asexual. That's the thing. Every time someone tries to define it, they're lumping ALL sexuals into one specific category which they don't all fit. By that definition, I and certain other sexuals on AVEN are asexual. But no, we're not. We're just sexuals in a minority that does indeed exist. We do desire sex under certain circumstances in certain ways, but we aren't all walking around evaluating random people on their sexiness level or trying to meet a certain sexiness level for others or anything of the sort - I know quite a few sexual females on AVEN pretty much just like me, but haven't talked to enough of the currently active sexual males to know how they feel on the matter. We have in front of us first-hand examples of how that "scholarly article" does not apply to ALL sexual people. Just because it applies to many sexuals does not mean all sexual people experience what James Giles is defining. 

 

If you dislike James Giles and the Psychology Today article I provided, can you please provide a publication that supports your opinion? So far your only sources have been your personal online discussions. And if you really think that you've refuted such a commonly held concept in psychology and the behavioural sciences based on your online chats, then I would suggest that you write a paper, since it would be an opportunity for you to become quite famous. With greatest respect, though, I suspect it's far more likely that you're misinterpreting the phenomenon, as I've explained above.

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

Way to invalidate the sexual members of AVEN who don't, in fact, experience "sexual attraction" and who have tried to explain it's their desire for partnered sex that defines their sexuality, not certain qualities or characteristics in  the people that "make them want to have sex" T_T 

 

Not all sexual people "react to things that are clearly meant to be sexual".. Some do, which is why that form of advertising works a lot of the time. But many sexuals also are offended or grossed out by, for example, seeing a half naked male or female model crawling over a car or whatever. Sexuals aren't all beasts driven by some internal lust that takes over their brains whenever they see something that's meant to be "sexy", and they aren't all attempting to look a certain way in the hopes of attracting the attention of potential sexual partners either. *sigh*.

 

This is WHY the concept of sexual attraction is such an issue, because it lumps all sexual people into this hypsersexual, extremely sexually driven little box that only a certain percentage of sexuals actually fit into. 

I don't understand how you arrive at these impressions of what sexual attraction entails. The Psychology Today article I linked earlier, for example, describes it as a nuanced phenomenon containing various aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual elements. And registering something as sexually desirable probably doesn't produce a desire to have actually sex most of the time; that fits with the sexual attraction concept. No one is claiming that sexual people are "lustful beasts" with no control over their actions, or that they are all hyper-sexual teenagers. Again, this is a reason to be sceptical of your claim that many sexual people don't experience sexual attraction, because your impression of sexual attraction has nothing to do with what it actually is.

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

This is a misinterpretation of what I argued. I claim that mot sexual people have preferences based on attraction to certain features of other persons. Those preferences may or may not be appearance based. Furthermore, I argue that sexual attraction is one cause of desire for partnered sex, not the only one. I am sure plenty of sexual people also have sex for reasons unconnected to sexual attraction.

 

If you dislike James Giles and the Psychology Today article I provided, can you please provide a publication that supports your opinion? So far your only sources have been your personal online discussions. And if you really think that you've refuted such a commonly held concept in psychology and the behavioural sciences based on your online chats, then I would suggest that you write a paper, since it would be an opportunity for you to become quite famous. With greatest respect, though, I suspect it's far more likely that you're misinterpreting the phenomenon, as I've explained above.

I worked in the sex industry for two years, so as far as I'm concerned I know a great deal more about the range of human sexual desires and behaviours than your average scholar whose opinions are based generally on things they have read and a certain select group of people they may have studied, as opposed to talking to the (on average) 7 different people he had to screw a night for two years to learn about what drives them sexually (which is what I did). On top of that, I spent about 3 years on FetLife (when I identified as ace) learning by directly interacting with sexual people there about what drove them sexually. Skullery Maid actually linked quite a few very interesting studies a while back about the difference between (average) female and male sexuality etc, primary and secondary "attractions" etc, which supported what people on my side of the fence are trying to explain. I just can't be bothered to hunt through pages of her previous posts to find them for you, when what we are saying is actually very obvious and self-explanatory if only you could take a step back and try to look at what multiple sexual people on this site have been trying to say for years. Regarding the part you quoted by James Giles, there are sexual people on this very site (and many more besides) who do not experience "sexual attraction" in the way he defined it: I myself do not experience what he is talking about, or anything like that. Even if it's a perfectly accurate definition of sexual attraction (I'm not saying it isnt) the point I'm making is that not all sexual people experience that. That's how SOME sexuals experience sexual attraction, not all (unless you're going to try to convince me and certain other sexuals on AVEN, and Skullery Maid, that we are all asexual?)

 

On top of that, all the scholarly articles on sexual attraction become meaningless when you look at a language like for example, German, which defines sexual orientations by which genders you desire sex with. Its not that people who speak different languages experience it differently, it's that English has one messed up definition. Here is the definition of asexuality on the German AVEN:

 

Asexuality - no desire for sexual interaction.

Note: Asexuality has nothing to do with disgust or aversion to sex, but merely means that there is no desire for sexual interaction! 

 

It doesn't get much more basic or self-explanatory than that.

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

I don't understand how you arrive at these impressions of what sexual attraction entails. The Psychology Today article I linked earlier, for example, describes it as a nuanced phenomenon containing various aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual elements. No one is claiming that sexual people are "lustful beasts" with no control over their actions, or that they are all hyper-sexual teenagers. Again, this is a reason to be sceptical of your claim that many sexual people don't experience sexual attraction, because your impression of sexual attraction has nothing to do with what it actually is.

I'm not talking about the definition in the psychology today article, or even how I myself would define sexual attraction, but by how most people here define sexual attraction (ie looking at people and getting horny, and wanting to have sex with "hot" people etc).. None of them are basing their definitions off that article, they're basing their definition of sexual attraction around what they mistakenly believe all sexual people experience: a desire to have sex with "hot" people. Looking at people they think are attractive and getting horny.. etc. I've been discussing this with people here for years now, and that's how sexual attraction is most commonly defined in this community, which is how we get so many people identifying as asexual based on a total misunderstanding of normal sexuality. I'm not saying they've read that article and thought "I desire sex with people for pleasure but not for any of the reasons James Giles states, so I must be ace".. I'm saying they're coming to their own conclusions about what sexual attraction is and basing their asexuality around that.. and that's encouraged on AVEN, which is the issue (because it leads to people identifying as asexual for all sorts of vastly different reasons, while ignoring the experiences of regular sexual people). Whereas if you take away the term "sexual attraction" you lose all that confusion and misunderstanding.

 

Again, regardless of how James Giles defines sexual attraction (and again, I'm not saying he's incorrect) *not all sexual people experience that* ... Pretty much for me, if I'm emotionally close enough with someone (ie my partner) I may be comfortable enough to choose to have certain sexual acts for pleasure. That's it. There is no "attraction" to random attractive people. No desire to have sex with someone because they look good to me. No attempts to be sexually appealing to others. No judging others on some sort of "sexually attractive scale". No real need for sex even. For me it's "okay I trust and love you enough to maybe choose to have certain types of sex with you for pleasure.." which is very, very different from what James Giles is explaining in his definition of sexual attraction. I don't experience what he's explaining, but I'm still not asexual (even though I thought I was for ages).. So using sexual attraction to separate sexuals from asexuals is flawed, because not all sexual people experience sexual attraction regardless of how you define it.. No matter how anyone defines sexual attraction, there are sexual people who do not experience that. A scholar doesn't need to tell you that, you only need to ask the sexual people themselves!! That is of course unless you define sexual attraction as "the desire for partnered sex" (the way AVEN does) which yes, All sexual people experience that to some extent or another, under certain circumstances.

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

I worked in the sex industry for two years, so as far as I'm concerned I know a great deal more about the range of human sexual desires and behaviours than your average scholar whose opinions are based generally on things they have read and a certain select group of people they may have studied, as opposed to talking to the (on average) 7 different people he had to screw a night for two years to learn about what drives them sexually (which is what I did).

I can't rationally accept the claim that you know more than thousands of academics, based solely on your personal experience (insightful though it may be). If this is the standard of evidence you would like the asexual community to adopt, I doubt it will be taken seriously by the general public.

 

23 minutes ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

Skullery Maid actually linked quite a few very interesting studies a while back about the difference between (average) female and male sexuality etc, primary and secondary "attractions" etc, which supported what people on my side of the fence are trying to explain. I just can't be bothered to hunt through pages of her previous posts to find them for you, when what we are saying is actually very obvious and self-explanatory if only you could take a step back and try to look at what multiple sexual people on this site have been trying to say for years.

I explained in detail in an earlier post in this same thread – and I think @Xenobot made the same point – regarding Emily Nagoski's writing on spontaneous and responsive sexual desire. This has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because sexual attraction is a different concept from desire. Nagoski, the source of the articles which you mention and which I have discussed previously (sometime yesterday I tracked down the post by Skullery Maid with the links), never says that women don't experience sexual attraction. In fact, the view that most do appears to be one of her underlying assumptions.

 

23 minutes ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

On top of that, all the scholarly articles on sexual attraction become meaningless when you look at a language like for example, German, which defines sexual orientations by which genders you desire sex with. Its not that people who speak different languages experience it differently, it's that English has one messed up definition.

Hundreds of thousands of academic articles in English become meaningless because the German language is different. Seriously! If that was a real problem, I think the English language psychology academy would have caught on by now.

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

I can't rationally accept the claim that you know more than thousands of academics

Wait, thousands of academics? You linked a quote by one academic about how he defined sexual attraction, which certainly doesn't apply to all sexual people (unless myself and certain other sexuals here are ace.. lol)

 

Honestly, I have to cook dinner. And I'm really tired of interacting with you as it's clearly not getting us anywhere..I have a female body, just to be clear. Vagina, tits, a womb.. etc. I don't experience what James Giles was describing in that scholarly article (I feel so pretentious using those words) and there are other people with tits and vaginas who also don't experience what he was describing. Oh and there are people with penises who don't experience it either.. That doesn't automatically make us asexual though, okay? Just because some of us don't assess the sexual attractiveness of strangers or try to make ourselves sexually appealing to others or whatever, that doesn't make us ace. Not even all men do that (my partner for one).. he's literally never assessed the "sexual attractiveness" of a stranger, tried to make himself seem sexually appealing, or any of the other things outlined in your quote by Mr Giles. What he's saying applies to SOME sexual people, not all - and that applies to literally any definition of sexual attraction you use, from any scholarly article you hunt out (that includes the outdated ones and the modern ones).. That's WHY defining asexuality by sexual attraction is useless: no one can come up with a definition for it that literally applies to all sexual people. The only thing ALL sexual people have in common is that to some extent or another they desire partnered sex for pleasure, under some circumstances. That's it. And asexuals do not experience that. Sexual attraction is a meaningless and relatively useless concept to try to define and you can argue all you want but it won't change that.

 

Scholarly articles are important to you, experience is important to me. I listen to the people with personal experience in these matters (ie sexuals, and you know, myself).. You're only interested in what scholars and psychologists have to say. My experience of scholars and psychologists is that their ideas are generally utterly flawed and have very little application in everyday life (ie how they try to deal with mental illness, raising children etc - most of it is utterly worthless when you try to apply it to actual real life people) .. So yeah, I really don't care what scholars (just saying that word makes me cringe) and psychologists have to say on the topic of sexual attraction (and again, sexual attraction is a meaningless concept as far as I'm concerned) ..But as you place ALL importance on what scholars and psychologists have to say, you and I will never be able to agree. Because you have no faith in my sources, and I have no faith in yours.

 

I've been doing this for years now, and I honestly think I've probably written more on this particular topic now than probably almost anyone else alive (I'm talking thousands of posts many of which are thousands of words long).. and yeah, no matter what I say or how often I say it, it won't change the opinions of someone like you who only wants to hear from "scholars" on a topic that I feel only people with actual experience can have any real knowledge of. So yeah, as I said at the start of this thread, I really need to stop commenting on AVEN and take my efforts somewhere where they will reach a wider and less emotionally involved audience. It's clearly pointless continuing this here as even if I did change your mind, I'd only have to have this exact same discussion with the next person, and the next, with all this hard work being instantly lost in the sea of old posts.. and it's been that way for years now. *sigh* I give up lol.

 

Edit: I'd also have you know I was actually on your side of the fence when I started all this, but sensible people convinced me of the error in my beliefs. So yeah, that does actually happen here and quite regularly. It just takes so much time and effort and all those words and posts etc will be lost in the sea of old threads regardless. So much wasted time T_T

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kai99 said:

So what exactly differs between a sexual and a asexual? One wants sex, the other doesn't. Defining asexuality as a person who doesn't want partnered sex under any circumstance takes away the confusion of the old definition because that meaning is clear and to the point.

Yes.

 

I just don't see why we have to have umpteen threads filled with pages after pages of labyrinthian arguments about the definition of asexuality when ^^THIS^^ says it all.   Pan alone has probably written a 900-page book's worth  of verbiage on the subject by now.  

 

I submit that there is no member of the general  public who would fail to understand what asexuality is if they were given that explanation.  And I also submit that there is no one who has observed themselves and their reactions to others over a period of, say, 10 years after the age of 18 and have decided that they are asexual who would argue with that definition.  

 

So why are we still futzing around?  

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

I can't rationally accept the claim that you know more than thousands of academics, based solely on your personal experience (insightful though it may be). If this is the standard of evidence you would like the asexual community to adopt, I doubt it will be taken seriously by the general public.

 

I explained in detail in an earlier post in this same thread – and I think @Xenobot made the same point – regarding Emily Nagoski's writing on spontaneous and responsive sexual desire. This has nothing to do with sexual attraction, because sexual attraction is a different concept from desire. Nagoski, the source of the articles which you mention and which I have discussed previously, never says that women don't experience sexual attraction. In fact, the view that most do appears to be one of her underlying assumptions.

 

Hundreds of thousands of of academic articles in English become meaningless because the German language is different. Seriously! If that was a real problem, I think the English language psychology academy would have caught on by now.

I think perhaps she's referring to primary attraction = attraction based on immediately apparent stimuli such as appearance, smell, first impression of behaviors, etc, and secondary attraction = attraction based on things you would only find out after interacting with that person for a while such as personality traits, beliefs, emotional connection etc. I am not sure how this supports her case or not. Secondary attraction that leads to sexual desire is still a form of sexual attraction. People who are looking for longterm partners rely more heavily on secondary attraction, and I think for some people, secondary attraction is their primary mode of sexual attraction.

 

If the arguement is that sexual people who experience secondary attraction are not experiencing sexual attraction then that is a misunderstanding of the concept. Googling "primary and secondary attraction" links to a bunch of asexuality related sites, including AVENwiki, wherein it is very clearly described as a type of sexual attraction. I get the strong feeling that I've come across this idea before outside of the asexual community, which may be the academic paper she is referring to, but I don't know for certain.

 

If the arguement is that people within the asexual community frequently don't realize that not all sexual attraction looks like primary sexual attraction and that secondary sexual attraction is totally normal and common, then I think she is absolutely correct. We've both noticed that a lot of people around here think of sexual attraction only as this primary attraction style that leads to spontaneous desire which is an incomplete and biased view of sexuality that erases female sexuality in particular.

 

I do think there should be more education about responsive desire, and secondary sexual attraction around here, because a lot of people do seem to have some really bizarre misconceptions about it. I don't think that means we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

...and just prior to writing this sentence I see that Cartophile has responded, but I will post this nonetheless, because I've already put my time and thought into writing it.

 

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

Yes.

 

I just don't see why we have to have umpteen threads filled with pages after pages of labyrinthian arguments about the definition of asexuality when ^^THIS^^ says it all.   Pan alone has probably written a 900-page book's worth  of verbiage on the subject by now.  

 

I submit that there is no member of the general  public who would fail to understand what asexuality is if they were given that explanation.  And I also submit that there is no one who has observed themselves and their reactions to others over a period of, say, 10 years after the age of 18 and have decided that they are asexual who would argue with that definition.  

 

So why are we still futzing around?  

Thank you! What you just said is pretty much all I intended on saying when I came to this thread, as I was actually more concerned with the discussion about the way AVENS values harm asexuality.. but yeah, I got sidetracked and have pretty much wasted my entire Sunday T_T

 

As a side-note, I noticed many people still keep referring to me as Pan, so I changed my name back. Probably now that I have, everyone will start casually referring to me as Cartophile :P

 

I'm outta this thread, it's given me headache! :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pan. said:

Wait, thousands of academics? You linked a quote by one academic about how he defined sexual attraction, which certainly doesn't apply to all sexual people (unless myself and certain other sexuals here are ace.. lol)

 

Scholarly articles are important to you, experience is important to me. I listen to the people with personal experience in these matters (ie sexuals, and you know, myself).. You're only interested in what scholars and psychologists have to say. My experience of scholars and psychologists is that their ideas are generally utterly flawed and have very little application in everyday life (ie how they try to deal with mental illness, raising children etc - most of it is utterly worthless when you try to apply it to actual real life people) ..

 

As I've written elsewhere on this topic, for example, I did a university library search for "sexual attraction", which returned about 310,000 hits. So thousands of academics and hundreds of thousands of articles is a justified estimate. Here is a link to a Google Scholar search I just did which returned 415,000 hits:

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=sexual+attraction

I have found through past discussions on this issue, and here again, that support for your type of opinion may boil down to an essentially anti-academic disposition. I don't think the asexual community would be well served by appearing to be anti-academic. At this point, I'm left to view your opinion in the same sort of way as I would view someone who rejects science in favour of basing their concepts on the Bible. I can't really argue with it, because I have a totally different set of background assumptions.

The claim that I'm only interested in what academics say is a gross misinterpretation of what I've been arguing all alone. You may recall that one of my central arguments concerns the blog stories of sex-favourable asexuals, experiences which you seem to ignore. Another is the experiences of the other sexual people outside of the AVEN community, plus a number within this community, plus the popular media, plus my own experiences, none of which you seem to think are relevant to your allegedly experience-based argument, which in fact only takes into account the experiences of a very small number of people (sexuals that you've interacted with through Internet forum culture).

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

As I've written elsewhere on this topic, for example, I did a university library search for "sexual attraction", which returned about 310,000 hits. So thousands of academics and hundreds of thousands of articles is a justified estimate. Here is a link to a Google Scholar search I just did which returned 415,000 hits:

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=sexual+attraction

I have found through past discussions on this issue, and here again, that support for your type of opinion may boil down to an essentially anti-academic disposition. I don't think the asexual community would be well served by appearing to be anti-academic. At this point, I'm left to view your opinion in the same sort of way as I would view someone who rejects science in favour of basing their concepts on the Bible. I can't really argue with it, because I have a totally different set of background assumptions.

The claim that I'm only interested in what academics say is a gross misinterpretation of what I've been arguing all alone. You may recall that one of my central arguments concerns the blog stories of sex-favourable asexuals, experiences which you seem to ignore. Another is the experiences of the other sexual people outside of the AVEN community, plus a number within this community, plus the popular media, plus my own experiences, none of which you seem to think are relevant to your allegedly experience-based argument, which in fact only takes into account the experiences of a very small number of people (sexuals that you've interacted with through Internet forum culture).

But you haven't talked about your experiences.  All you've talked about in your many threads are academic studies and articles.  

 

As far as a "very small number of people", I, for instance, have been on  AVEN for about 10 years now.  In that decade, I've read the experiences of asexuals and sexuals, which have amounted to thousands of  people.  AVEN's membership shifts over time; it doesn't consist of the same people for years (only a few of us hang on that long), so I and other long-time members are constantly hearing new experiences.  After that amount of time, we're able to "record" in our minds some fairly accurate trends.  It's unfortunate that you appear to dismiss that.  

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

But you haven't talked about your experiences.  All you've talked about in your many threads are academic studies and articles.  

 

As far as a "very small number of people", I, for instance, have been on  AVEN for about 10 years now.  In that decade, I've read the experiences of asexuals and sexuals, which have amounted to thousands of  people.  AVEN's membership shifts over time; it doesn't consist of the same people for years (only a few of us hang on that long), so I and other long-time members are constantly hearing new experiences.  After that amount of time, we're able to "record" in our minds some fairly accurate trends.  It's unfortunate that you appear to dismiss that.  

I started this thread a little while back in response to accusations that I'm only concerned with academics. It is based entirely on an argument from reported experiences by asexual identifying bloggers, academic source free:
 

As I've said a number of times, I've listened to the experiences of sexuals on this site who believe they don't experience sexual attraction, and it seems to me that they are operating with a concept of sexual attraction that is inaccurate. I accept that they don't experience what they think sexual attraction is. So I'm not disagreeing with their experience reports. But I think that sexual attraction is something different, based on my interactions with people outside AVEN and depictions in the popular media, supplemented by academic research that I've done. That seems like a reasonable, balanced approach.

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

IAs I've said a number of times, I've listened to the experiences of sexuals on this site who believe they don't experience sexual attraction, and it seems to me that they are operating with a concept of sexual attraction that is inaccurate. 

I'm just amazed by that statement.   I've  read of  those experiences also (much longer than you have, and many more of them), and I tend to accept that sexuals know what they hell they are or are not  experiencing.   Because, you know, they are sexuals.  

 

But I give up.  You've explained how you feel (and I mean feel, not think) many times and I guess you will not allow yourself to feel any other way.    

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

I'm just amazed by that statement.   I've  read of  those experiences also (much longer than you have, and many more of them), and I tend to accept that sexuals know what they hell they are or are not  experiencing.   Because, you know, they are sexuals.  

 

But I give up.  You've explained how you feel (and I mean feel, not think) many times and I guess you will not allow yourself to feel any other way.    

I don't think you've followed the syntax of the sentences that I've written. I explicitly state that I believe sexuals know what they are experiencing. Everyone I've heard from here who's said that sexuals don't experience sexual attraction usually describe it as though it entails the cliched behaviour of a teenager or a hyper-sexual male. I agree they are not experiencing that. However, attraction is a nuanced, complex phenomenon, which at root has to do with sexual preferences and orientation (according both to academic descriptions and depictions in popular culture). I have not heard from many sexuals who say they have no sexual preferences or no sexual orientation. That appears to be a rare phenomenon.

You also continue to ignore the experiences of the sex-favourable asexuals who report experiencing asexuality in terms of lack of sexual attraction. Why are their experiences not relevant?


I've talked to some sexuals (both men and women) I know outside the AVEN community, and the general consensus has been that of course they have "types" that they're attracted to, etc. I do not understand the insistence on relying solely on reports from sexuals who post on AVEN forums as the only source of evidence. I have social interactions both on and off of AVEN, plus I consult academic research because the impressions provided by any one social circle are bound to be limited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...