Definition discussion.

[Tofer]

The song is from 1985. AVEN had a thread on it a year ago:

 

 

[Tofer]

 

9 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I was lucky enough to find AVEN.de before English/international AVEN. If I hadn't seen the infinitely clearer definition on the German boards ("no desire/urge for sexual interaction") beforehand, AVEN would have been utterly unhelpful to me.

I actually agree with you that the AVENde definition is the clearest and most useful as a short definition of asexuality. I'm in favor of AVEN using "no desire for sexual interaction" on the banner at the top of the http://www.asexuality.org/ page.

 

As you say, this definition is the clearest and the most helpful for someone who is not already familiar with asexuality.

 

I also agree that it is important to make it clear that persons who do desire sexual interaction (other than for an extrinsic motive), are not asexual. 

 

This is in spite of the fact that I still believe "attraction" and "sexual attraction" are important and essential terms within the discourse of asexuality as it has developed over the past 15 years. But how this is so requires too much explanation to be useful in the top banner definition.

 

As I understand the attraction definition, it is actually is desire-based, because desire is an essential part of any definition of sexual attraction that makes sense for the purpose of defining asexuality. So to me there is no conflict between a valid attraction-based definition and a valid desire-based definition. It's just that the current top banner definition, "An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction," is too confusing because it relies on a non-obvious definition of sexual attraction.

[Sally]

7 hours 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 

That's a very rickety claim.  120 years ago the idea that women deserved the vote in the US wasn't popular.  50 years ago the idea that women should be able to work at any job they chose wasn't popular.   10 years ago the idea that gays should be able to marry wasn't popular.   The lack of popularity in all of those cases had nothing to do with the worth of the ideas.  

[Guest]

I find viewing sexual orientation as a purely social construct dangerous, in that it unintentionally promotes the idea that sexual orientation can be manipulated by creating some environment. This is because constructivism also comes with a complete denial of any biological factors. Aside from the ethical implications, if sexual orientation was a social construct then conversion therapies should have succeeded to a significant degree, which have not been the case.

 

In that aspect, biological essentialism works better for me. Born this way.

[Guest]

As an addendum, one of the major motivations for constructivist discourse is that holding an essentialist view (that there is some innate biological factor) on sexual orientation might promote justification towards discriminatory attitudes. I agree in that's something one should worry about, in fact everyone should too, and I was also worried about that, but evidence suggests that the "more essentialism leads to more bias" works different from each topic.

 

It is indeed true for gender, but the correlation is opposite for sexual orientation: essentialist viewpoints toward sexual orientation are actually correlated with more positive attitudes, while the viewpoints that there is no biological basis in sexual orientation are correlated with more negative attitudes. (not that I'm accusing anyone in specific, I'm just trying to provide a food for thought in that the reality sometimes is a bit counterintuitive) The essentialist message is quite intuitive too: you can't change them, so quit trying and leave them the way are.

[Xenobot]

4 hours ago, butterflo said:

I find viewing sexual orientation as a purely social construct dangerous, in that it unintentionally promotes the idea that sexual orientation can be manipulated by creating some environment. This is because constructivism also comes with a complete denial of any biological factors. Aside from the ethical implications, if sexual orientation was a social construct then conversion therapies should have succeeded to a significant degree, which have not been the case.

 

In that aspect, biological essentialism works better for me. Born this way.

It is very important to remember that no one should ever try to actively manipulate someone's sexual orientation. The "born this way" slogan helps to promote that for most people, but it ends up coming across as dishonest propaganda for some people who are aware of the research that shows sexual orientation is not 100% biological (see: identical twin studies). Of course the results of the studies that have been conducted do vary some, and volunteer bias is a concern, but generally those studies suggest that both biology and the environment play some role (with variance in how much they conclude biology influences it).

 

As long as we understand as a society that manipulating the environment of a child to try to prevent a particular orientation is unethical, and that trying to change it after it has been triggered is abusive, then we're golden. I think eventually we'll find the explanation for identical twins not sharing sexual orientation 100% of the time in epigenetics. I hope that if we ever find the environmental factors likely to effect the epigenetics of someone predisposed to a minority sexual orientation that we are already at a place in our society where we accept minority sexual orientations enough that we don't care to do anything about it.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Tofer said:

As I understand the attraction definition, it is actually is desire-based, because desire is an essential part of any definition of sexual attraction that makes sense for the purpose of defining asexuality. So to me there is no conflict between a valid attraction-based definition and a valid desire-based definition. It's just that the current top banner definition, "An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction," is too confusing because it relies on a non-obvious definition of sexual attraction.

That might be how you understand it personally and that's technically how AVEN actually defines sexual attraction. AVEN defines sexual attraction as "desire for sexual contact with someone else" (in one part of the FAQ anyway). And I saw an interview with David Jay today where he said "asexual means you don't experience sexual attraction - You lack an intrinsic desire for sex to be a part of your relationships, regardless of whether you choose to have sex" (something like that anyway). He also repeatedly said in the (A)sexual documentary "I'm asexual - I just don't want sex" and even at one point something like "I still experience attraction, I've just never wanted to have sex" (many, many asexuals feel this way)

 

HOWEVER, many, many people interpret the sexual attraction definition to mean things like "you don't find people attractive to look at" and "you don't look at attractive people and get horny".. People who define it this was say that asexuals can desire sex as much as anyone else: An asexual might be a hypersexual who actively seeks out 10 different people a day to have sex with, they just don't care about appearance (I've even seen people use this claim to express superiority over sexual people, like asexuals are just more advanced and can desire sex for more pure reasons that sexuals - there are discussions like this on AVEN).

 

Then there are the asexuals who hear the sexual attraction definition and automatically dismiss the idea that they themselves might be ace because they do indeed experience "attraction" (as David Jay said he does), so they initially dismiss the idea that they might be ace despite the discourse, pain and confusion their lack of desire for partnered sex causes in their life (especially if they're romantic and actively desire and seek romantic relationships.. then suffer through the sex because they feel too bad not to. Many romantic aces end up in situations like this)

 

I myself still fit the overall definition of asexual very well, I'm just not asexual as I now know. But from the time I became sexually active at 18, until I was 27-28ish, I had literally no desire to connect sexually with anyone, ever. Even when I felt I was "in love", having sex with my partner was a chore that I hated (and hated myself because of my dislike of sex and lack of desire for it) .. I dreamed of what it would be like to experience romantic love without the other person ever wanting sex with me or anyone else, but felt like a freak for even thinking that. There's no one alive who doesn't want sex, right? (that's what I thought, anyway). Then way back when I was like 20 asexuality was mentioned in a local soap opera where I lived. They  explained it as someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction and doesn't get "horny". And he wanted a relationship that was like "best friends" as opposed to intimate. (the person in the show IDing as ace was a man). I didn't even connect myself with that because I'm nothing like that - I do experience attraction as an overall concept (many aces do), i have a libido so I get aroused etc (many aces do) and I do desire romantic intimacy (many aces do).. I just never had any desire to actually have sex with other people. So the sexual attraction definition meant nothing to me.

 

It wasn't until I was about 23 when I finally saw a clip in a local current affairs show about an asexual couple who was madly in love and very intimate, they just had no desire to have sex (despite the male having a perfectly normal libido - he described it as "having working plumbing") that I finally clicked as to what asexuality actually is. I was so happy I cried.

 

I've met so many aces who were confused by the sexual attraction definition so didn't ID as ace for a long time. And on the other hand I've met many people who jumped on the asexual definition as soon as they saw it defined as "lack of sexual attraction" without it being explained that aces don't actually desire partnered sex. These people come to AVEN saying things like "I never even considered I might be different from anyone else, I mean, I want sex - who doesnt? But I just realised I'm asexual after I heard the definition of it on Tumblr, because I literally have never found anyone hot. Like, appearance just doesn't matter to me. I have sex with my partner because I love him so I enjoy the intimacy and pleasure sex brings, but yeah, I've never got horny from looking at anyone before. Can't believe I was asexual all this time and didn't know I was even different!" (that's a very, very normal sexual person, just to be clear, and also something you see pretty commonly here and on Tumblr)

 

So yeah. Maybe you see how sexual attraction is intrinsically somehow related to a desire for sexual interaction (and Pramana seems to as well) BUT many, many people do not see it that way at all. Most people believe sexual attraction is "looking at people and getting horny" and AVEN does actually describe it like that in a separate part of their FAQ. Lol. Hence why, yes, you are right. AVENde most definitely has the clearest most immediately understood definition of asexuality, and the most correct definition.

 

It's 4am, I must now get out of bed and start work *is still interested to hear Pramanas take on the idea that people who don't want sex may have been unofficially defined as asexual for some time, according to that 80's song linked on the previous page*

[Snao Cone]

Sticking to a purely constructivist or purely essentialist explanation is oversimplifying it for the sake of convincing people there's a valid explanation. The general population doesn't seem to want to put in the mental energy to understand that sexual orientations exist in us biologically to some degree, and it's socially constructed concepts that shape how we perceive ourselves and each other in light of these. So for asexuality, people without the innate desire for sex with others exist no matter what words are used. But without a recognized word for this, it's framed as something like "a little off" or "dull" or simply "not into sex". Or, without a word for it, people like this will push themselves into socially expected relationships and won't appear asexual. Sometimes anyone who didn't marry and have kids was assumed to be gay, even without same sex partners - while asexual people are different from homosexual people, if that didn't matter to the straight majority why would they have bother acknowledging the difference?

 

The point here is that there are elements of born-this-way AND cultural development in a/sexuality, which is why how we phrase the basis of our identity matters.

[Guest]

 

38 minutes ago, Snow Cone said:

The point here is that there are elements of born-this-way AND cultural development in a/sexuality, which is why how we phrase the basis of our identity matters.

A word of support: actually, essentialism is not about denying that there is a cultural/environmental factor. As long as one believes that there is some biological factor in sexual orientation, one is an essentialist.

[Tofer]

1 hour ago, butterflo said:

 

A word of support: actually, essentialism is not about denying that there is a cultural/environmental factor. As long as one believes that there is some biological factor in sexual orientation, one is an essentialist.

That's not how I understand essentialism. I agree with the philosopher  Kwame Anthony Appiah, who calls himself a nominalist about identities. I don't have time to explain right now.

[Pramana]

21 hours ago, Sally said:

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.  

1. I've consistently argued since early on that asexuality should be defined as a lack of sexual attraction and/or sexual desire. Therefore, I am pro desire-based definition, alongside an attraction-based definition.

2. Your view appears to be in the minority. It's not accepted by the BoD, the recent poll on the topic showed only 25% support for a desire-only definition, and it seems that only a small number of members are motivated to opposite the status quo. The Project Team's recent statement on the matter suggests they intend to follow scientific research regarding definitions.

3. A number of desire-only supporters have consistently argued that they would like to tell people who currently identify as asexual spectrum that they are not asexual.

4. In my view, sexual orientations are social constructs (I admit this is more controversial). Nevertheless, I agree that for many people, their orientation may be experienced as entirely biological, or close to entirely biological. But there's also evidence to suggest that environment also plays a significant role for many people; I would say that environment has been a major factor in my caae.

In addition, you keep saying I don't listen to experience. Early on, I was in favour of an attraction-only definition. I changed my position to reflect experiences reported by desire-only supporters. Furthermore, you keep writing about "our experience" like you speak for all of AVEN, even though it's clear that what you really mean is your experience, and the experience of people who agree with you. You seem unwilling to take into account any evidence which falls outside that narrow scope. And the indications are that your position lacks sufficient support to effect change. In fact, it appears that AVEN as an organization is taking a position which is opposed to your views.

[Pramana]

2 hours ago, butterflo said:

 

A word of support: actually, essentialism is not about denying that there is a cultural/environmental factor. As long as one believes that there is some biological factor in sexual orientation, one is an essentialist.

I believe that there is a significant biological factor, but I'm not an essentialist.

[Pramana]

10 hours ago, Sally said:

That's a very rickety claim.  120 years ago the idea that women deserved the vote in the US wasn't popular.  50 years ago the idea that women should be able to work at any job they chose wasn't popular.   10 years ago the idea that gays should be able to marry wasn't popular.   The lack of popularity in all of those cases had nothing to do with the worth of the ideas.  

The difference is that vocal desire-only supporters have discussed their motivations in detail, and it's obvious why people might find some of those motivations to be ethically problematic.

[Pramana]

4 hours ago, butterflo said:

As an addendum, one of the major motivations for constructivist discourse is that holding an essentialist view (that there is some innate biological factor) on sexual orientation might promote justification towards discriminatory attitudes. I agree in that's something one should worry about, in fact everyone should too, and I was also worried about that, but evidence suggests that the "more essentialism leads to more bias" works different from each topic.

 

It is indeed true for gender, but the correlation is opposite for sexual orientation: essentialist viewpoints toward sexual orientation are actually correlated with more positive attitudes, while the viewpoints that there is no biological basis in sexual orientation are correlated with more negative attitudes. (not that I'm accusing anyone in specific, I'm just trying to provide a food for thought in that the reality sometimes is a bit counterintuitive) The essentialist message is quite intuitive too: you can't change them, so quit trying and leave them the way are.

This has nothing to do with whether or not essentialism is true. You're confusing facts about the world with moral facts.

I also disagree that essentialism really creates more positive attitudes. If you have to say that homosexuality is alright merely because one is born that way and cannot change it, then you're tacitly accepting that if you could change it then you should change it. Which is to say you are tacitly accepting that homosexuality is less good than heterosexuality. The better response is to say it makes no difference whether or not homosexuality is a choice; it's a legitimate orientation either way.

[Pramana]

12 hours ago, butterflo said:

I find viewing sexual orientation as a purely social construct dangerous, in that it unintentionally promotes the idea that sexual orientation can be manipulated by creating some environment. This is because constructivism also comes with a complete denial of any biological factors. Aside from the ethical implications, if sexual orientation was a social construct then conversion therapies should have succeeded to a significant degree, which have not been the case.

 

In that aspect, biological essentialism works better for me. Born this way.

My impression is that most social constructivists accept that sexual orientations have some biological component. Furthermore, the fact that it may be possible to manipulate sexual orientations has nothing to do with whether or not it is ethical to do so. Conversion therapies are ethically problematic for all kinds of reasons, and it's to be expected that they wouldn't work very well given the difficulty of changing ingrained dispositions (whether those ingrained dispositions are the result of biological or environmental factors or both).

I agree that many people experience their orientation as biological or close to entirely biological, but that's not true of everyone. I am sure that is not true in my case.

[Snao Cone]

1 minute ago, Pramana said:

The better response is to say it makes no difference whether or not homosexuality is a choice; it's a legitimate orientation either way.

And the response to that will be to adore that it's not legitimate because it's not natural. I certainly understand and agree that homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality shouldn't need to be biological to be acceptable. I would love to live in a world where people didn't feel like something needed to be explained in a scientific-sounding way to be respected. But when explaining asexuality to people not familiar with it, using the starting point of "Like any other orientation, it occurs naturally in humans" is going to build a better understanding than starting with "Well, the word gained traction in 2001 when David Jay decided to start a website..." or whatever other starting point you want to use.

 

I mean, it sucks that people mighty only accept another orientation if they think it's inborn and unavoidable, but that is a starting point that helps reduce homophobia and discrimination for LGBT people in their daily lives so they can first survive. We're better off getting asexuality accepted as something people can't change, before bringing the general population into community-specific discussions.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Pramana said:

The difference is that vocal desire-only supporters have discussed their motivations in detail, and it's obvious why people might find some of those motivations to be ethically problematic.

Ethics in which these motivations are seen as problematic are clearly at odds with AVEN's declared mission of education. So these people's code of ethics - in cases where it even is a question of ethics, instead of one of inertia and/or vested selfish interest - is a problem holding AVEN back from functioning as declared to be intended.

 

Either way, I don't share their/your system of ethics, and consider it dangerous and misguided to focus on sympathy and support at the cost of honesty and logical consistency. It's harmful to asexuals as a whole; reducing inclusivity and "tolerance" on this site would stop this harm from continuing to be done, and benefit all asexuals by restoring integrity to AVEN.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Ethics in which these motivations are seen as problematic are clearly at odds with AVEN's declared mission of education. So these people's code of ethics - in cases where it even is a question of ethics, instead of one of inertia and/or vested selfish interest - is a problem holding AVEN back from functioning as declared to be intended.

 

Either way, I don't share their/your system of ethics, and consider it dangerous and misguided to focus on sympathy and support at the cost of honesty and logical consistency. It's harmful to asexuals as a whole; reducing inclusivity and "tolerance" on this site would stop this harm from continuing to be done, and benefit all asexuals by restoring integrity to AVEN.

The way Mysticus words these statements can sound harsh, but again he's not actually saying "ban people from AVEN if they don't fit a specific definition of ace" (I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying anyway Mysticus, lol). The community itself can still welcome anyone and be supportive of people regardless of who they are or what their orientation is. It's the definition itself that's the issue, and the tolerance surrounding who and who not can identify as ace based on how they personally define sexual attraction, that is the issue. If someone comes here saying "I LOVE sex, I can't get enough of it. I just don't care about the appearance of the people I have sex with So I'm asexual. Actually, I'm an asexual perpetual virgin because lust is never a component when I have sex with people which puts me above and beyond sexuals, my motivations to have sex come from a place of purity, not lust" (actual example of a thread from AVEN).. Then people should be able to say "no, that's not asexual. That is a regular sexual person who doesn't necessarily have aesthetic preferences. Not all sexual people care about looks. But you're still welcome here if you want to discuss your thoughts and experiences etc with others in these forums. You're just not ace" And then people should be able to refer back to a definition that clearly articulates exactly what they're trying to say. Instead of a mod stepping in and saying "you're not allowed to say who is and isn't asexual, it's up to each individual to decide whether or not a label suits them. The official definition of asexuality is lack of sexual attraction so while it may seem odd that an asexual desire sex to this extent, if that person believes they don't experience sexual attraction then they are by definition, asexual". It's that attitude that is harmful to education about asexuality (which is apparently the main purpose of this site, it's in the title) because that attitude is saying that education doesn't matter, all that matters is an individuals right to choose however they want to define sexual attraction and base their asexual identity around that.

 

(This reply was actually at@Pramana  but I quoted Mysticus to explain the whole "tolerance" thing. It's not about not tolerating people being allowed on AVEN if they don't fit a certain definition - anyone is allowed on AVEN to partake in community discussions etc, it's about not just saying "Oh yep, I see how you're defining sexual attraction there. You're totally ace based on how you personally defined that".. Yeah.)

[Guest]

Haha, yeah... I err on the side of harshness in order to get the truth out. Ace of Swords FTW! 

 

 

Of course sexuals are, and should always be, fine to remain on this site - if anything, we have too few of them. [Insert still grieving over Skulls here] 

 

What I'm against is the policy of being restrained by ToS from taking educative action against it when sexuals misidentify as aces. We should obviously not kick them out, but neither should we be discouraged from clearly telling them "no, you aren't asexual, because that word describes something very different from how you describe yourself."

 

Inclusivity should never go so far to require throwing education under the bus for it... but that's exactly what AVEN is currently doing. It's a horrid idea, and IMO it must not be tolerated.

[Homer]

On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Memento1 said:

Okay, I'm willing to hear yourr argument, though my first instinct is to balk.  HOW is being less inclusive a benefit?  As I see it, it will make a percentage of the membership feel better, a percentage of the membership feel much worse.  You're saying the benefit to the ones who remain outweighs the cost to those that don't?

Don't you understand that there's a MASSIVE difference between an inclusive community (everyone can come here and talk about their experiences!) and an inclusive definition?

--

If  AVEN FAQ defines 'sexual attraction' as 'no innate desire...' anyway, why did the attraction part ever exist in the first place? It is nothing more than a redundant extra leap (which is utterly confusing, at least based on my personal experiences.)

 

Just ban confusion already.

[Pramana]

On 3/27/2017 at 4:16 PM, Pan. said:

It's the definition itself that's the issue, and the tolerance surrounding who and who not can identify as ace based on how they personally define sexual attraction, that is the issue. If someone comes here saying "I LOVE sex, I can't get enough of it. I just don't care about the appearance of the people I have sex with So I'm asexual. Actually, I'm an asexual perpetual virgin because lust is never a component when I have sex with people which puts me above and beyond sexuals, my motivations to have sex come from a place of purity, not lust" (actual example of a thread from AVEN).. Then people should be able to say "no, that's not asexual. That is a regular sexual person who doesn't necessarily have aesthetic preferences. Not all sexual people care about looks. But you're still welcome here if you want to discuss your thoughts and experiences etc with others in these forums. You're just not ace"

I agree that the hypothetical person you describe above probably isn't asexual. But consider what I've proposed:

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction and/or a person who lacks intrinsic desire for partnered sex.

Desire for Partnered Sex: Intrinsic desire to fulfill a sexual urge.

Sexual Attraction: Preferences for sexual partners based on gender and/or other personal characteristics.

So in your example, you could simply say that sexual attraction is usually understood to include more than aesthetic characteristics, and ask them if they have partner preferences with regard to any other personal features. I don't think there are very many true cases of people who never experience sexual attraction while still desiring partnered sex, but it seems to me that if there are, that would constitute a variation of asexuality. Most pansexual people still have preferences based on other personal characteristics besides gender, and so would not be asexual according to this definition.

Furthermore, the hypothetical cases you describe sound more likely to come from adolescents in the process of determining their sexual identity. I would argue that it's more empowering to allow them to reach their own decisions, rather than making those decisions for them. I can see how in a highly sexualized high school environment, people might have overly simplistic/overly narrow views concerning the nature of sexual attraction. Surely, then, it would be in the interests of education to provide them with more information about what sexual attraction is, so that they can decide for themselves.

I would add that there are significant disagreements among AVEN members concerning some aspects of asexuality. For example, some people here don't believe in demisexuality. So as you can see, it would be highly problematic for AVEN members to start telling people whether or not they are demisexual. The preferable option is to provide information about what demisexuality is generally understood to be, and let people reach their own conclusions.


 

[Homer]

The way you define sexual attraction makes bi & pan people aces! Since you advocate 'and/or', you could simply leave out the desire part and base your assumptions on preferences only. If I were pan, I'd probably not have a preference. If I were bi (maybe even one who believes that sex = gender), I'd still have no preference. Boom, asexual.

 

Doesn't make sense.

[Tofer]

5 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction and/or a person who lacks desire for partnered sex.

The only problem with your proposal is that it's not simple enough for a webpage banner. 

 

The only reason I'm for changing the current top banner definition is to replace it with something easier to understand for a new person, something simpler, that requires less explanation than what's up there currently.

 

But your proposal makes things more complicated and confusing than what's up there now.

[Pramana]

1 minute ago, Tofer said:

The only problem with your proposal is that it's not simple enough for a webpage banner. 

 

The only reason I'm for changing the current top banner definition is to replace it with something easier to understand for a new person, something simpler, that requires less explanation than what's up there currently.

 

But your proposal makes things more complicated and confusing than what's up there now.

How about this idea from @Law of Circles

An asexual may be viewed as:
A person who does not experience sexual attraction.

Or as:
A person who does not desire partnered sex.

With suitable formatting, it could look good.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Sexual Attraction: Preferences for sexual partners based on gender and/or other personal characteristics.

At least that's a definition of the term. (And please be aware that this is a) in no way agreed upon by any majority, inside or outside of AVEN, and b) one heck of a more solid definition than A-"oh no let's not define anything we might end up invalidating someone"-VEN has the metaphoricall balls to give.)

 

However, it's one to which I say whether or not a person feels sexual attraction does not in any way determine whether or not they're asexual. Sexuals can experience sexual attraction or not; asexuals can experience sexual attraction or not. It needs to be entirely removed from a definition of asexuality, because it's irrelevant and doesn't inform the term it's used to define, at all. It's about as useful as adding "and/or has green eyes" to the definition.

[Tofer]

Just now, Pramana said:

How about this idea from @Law of Circles

An asexual may be viewed as:
A person who does not experience sexual attraction.

Or as:
A person who does not desire partnered sex.

With suitable formatting, it could look good.

You never give up ;-)

 

[Pramana]

7 minutes ago, Homer said:

The way you define sexual attraction makes bi & pan people aces! Since you advocate 'and/or', you could simply leave out the desire part and base your assumptions on preferences. If I were pan, I'd probably not have a preference. If I were bi (maybe even one who believes that sex = gender), I'd still have no preference. Boom, asexual.

 

Doesn't make sense.

My impression is that most pansexual people have preferences, it's just that those preferences are not based on gender. My understanding is that bisexual differs from pansexual because bisexuals are only attracted to male and female binary gender identities. @Xenobot explained this in detail in a post back aways in this thread.

[Lucinda]

12 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Sexual Attraction: Preferences for sexual partners based on gender and/or other personal characteristics.

Is that how Bogaert defines sexual attraction?

 

17 minutes ago, Pramana said:

So in your example, you could simply say that sexual attraction is usually understood to include more than aesthetic characteristics. I don't think there are very many true cases of people who never experience sexual attraction while still desiring partnered sex, but it seems to me that if there are, that would constitute a variation of asexuality.

Or a variation of sexuality.

 

I wonder how many non-aces, who experience some level of desire for partnered sex, are answering polls, surveys, and research questionnaires aimed at asexuals? Wouldn't the grays and the demis and the ones who admittedly have environmental issues tend to skew the results?

 

Lucinda

[Pramana]

12 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

At least that's a definition of the term. (And please be aware that this is a) in no way agreed upon by any majority, inside or outside of AVEN, and b) one heck of a more solid definition than A-"oh no let's not define anything we might end up invalidating someone"-VEN has the metaphoricall balls to give.)

 

However, it's one to which I say whether or not a person feels sexual attraction does not in any way determine whether or not they're asexual. Sexuals can experience sexual attraction or not; asexuals can experience sexual attraction or not. It needs to be entirely removed from a definition of asexuality, because it's irrelevant and doesn't inform the term it's used to define, at all. It's about as useful as adding "and/or has green eyes" to the definition.

That only works if you're willing to ignore behaviorist psychology and the experiences of sex-favourable asexuals and at least some demisexuals and gray-asexuals. I'm not. It appears that AVEN isn't either. And only a small group of members has come forward to oppose AVEN's decisions. Therefore, I would say that my arguments have been successful.

[Xenobot]

1 minute ago, Pramana said:

My impression is that most pansexual people have preferences, it's just that those preferences are not based on gender. My understanding is that bisexual differs from pansexual because bisexuals are only attracted to male and female binary gender identities. @Xenobot explained this in detail in a post back aways in this thread.

I did, and they do have sexual partner preferences beyond gender, just as most people do. Saying bi/pan people have no preferences is a harmful stereotype. It implies they are indiscriminate in their choices. It perpetuates the idea that bi/pan people are "slutty". None of that is true.

 

However, from my understanding and observation there are indeed bisexual people who are attracted to nonbinary people, and there are bisexual people who are attracted to transgender people, but they prefer the label bisexual because it's more commonly understood and accepted in comparison to pansexual. Alternately, they may just be unaware of pansexuality as a descriptor. Saying one is pansexual is merely making a stronger, more explicit statement in regard to their openness to non-cisgender partners.