Tal Shi'ar

Definition discussion.

629 posts in this topic

Pramana, I give up on you. You just won't listen or learn, and are too stubborn to admit the glaring flaws in your logic. It's worthless talking to you.

 

The hypothetical world where you indeed are successful... is a very dreary and anti-logical world. And it's a world in which I would not ever cease to say one thing: Asexuality is simply not a real thing. (Well, except in amoebas.) A shitload of "asexuals" will, no doubt, grow out of that silly phase of following a somewhat cult-like internet ideology to base their identity on - and the sooner they grow out of it, the better. Maybe just getting laid already and having some good sex could cure a lot of them of their "orientation" sooner.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no difference between bi and pan except for politics.

 

Pan was created because people thought the term bisexual marginalized non-binary and trans-people.  However, many bisexuals find this was biphobic, elitist, and an insulting mischaracterization of their orientation.  

 

Thus, you will find that many pan-sexuals often insist that there is a difference between themselves and bisexuals; while many bisexuals will insist the opposite.

 

Note that this bi site says they are the same:

 

https://bisexual.org/?qna=what-is-the-difference-between-bisexual-and-terms-like-pansexual-polysexual-omnisexual-ambisexual-and-fluid

 

 Now the pansexual saying there is a difference:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/im-pansexual-here-are-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-my-sexuality-10480878.html%3Famp

 

 

We are far from the only orientation that has definition issues...

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Pramana, I give up on you. You just won't learn, and are too stubborn to admit the glaring flaws in your logic. It's worthless talking to you.

 

The hypothetical world where you indeed are successful... is a very dreary and anti-logical world. And it's a world in which I would not ever cease to say one thing: Asexuality is simply not a real thing. (Well, except in amoebas.) A shitload of "asexuals" will, no doubt, grow out of that silly phase of following a somewhat cult-like internet ideology to base their identity on - and the sooner they grow out of it, the better. Maybe just getting laid already and having some good sex could cure a lot of them of their "orientation" sooner.

The bolded statement above is offensive to mourning geckos. Won't you think of the geckos, Mysticus? Why must you invalidate their identity?

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Xenobot said:

The bolded statement above is offensive to mourning geckos. Won't you think of the geckos, Mysticus? Why must you invalidate their identity?

*googles mourning geckos*

 

Zounds, you got me there. If any lepidodactylus lugubris happens to read this... 1) Sorry for invalidating you. 2) Holy shit, you can read???

5 people like this

Share this post


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

Pramana, I give up on you. You just won't listen or learn, and are too stubborn to admit the glaring flaws in your logic. It's worthless talking to you.

 

The hypothetical world where you indeed are successful... is a very dreary and anti-logical world. And it's a world in which I would not ever cease to say one thing: Asexuality is simply not a real thing. (Well, except in amoebas.) A shitload of "asexuals" will, no doubt, grow out of that silly phase of following a somewhat cult-like internet ideology to base their identity on - and the sooner they grow out of it, the better. Maybe just getting laid already and having some good sex could cure a lot of them of their "orientation" sooner.

I have nothing more to add. I'm content to leave the statement of a desire-only and anti-self-identification supporter to speak for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Ad hominem, obviously. But I'm not surprised that that's the best argumentational tool you have to offer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lost247365 said:

There is no difference between bi and pan except for politics.

 

Pan was created because people thought the term bisexual marginalized non-binary and trans-people.  However, many bisexuals find this was biphobic, elitist, and an insulting mischaracterization of their orientation.  

 

Thus, you will find that many pan-sexuals often insist that there is a difference between themselves and bisexuals; while many bisexuals will insist the opposite.

 

Note that this bi site says they are the same:

 

https://bisexual.org/?qna=what-is-the-difference-between-bisexual-and-terms-like-pansexual-polysexual-omnisexual-ambisexual-and-fluid

 

 Now the pansexual saying there is a difference:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/im-pansexual-here-are-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-my-sexuality-10480878.html%3Famp

 

 

We are far from the only orientation that has definition issues...

Indeed. There are many heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual people who are open to having a non-cisgender partner, but I can tell you as someone who started transitioning about 13 years ago, I have heard people with all of the above sexualities say they would not be willing to ever be with a transgender person regardless of which stage of their transition they were in. Being bisexual doesn't preclude transphobia, unfortunately. I have never heard a single pansexual make such a statement, however, as that would very much be against the whole point of identifying as they do. So yeah, there is a huge amount of overlap between pansexuality, and bisexuality. They are very nearly identical except that pansexuals are advertising their acceptance of non-cis people as potential partners.

 

 

Edited by Xenobot
Always making the fuckups.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lost247365 said:

There is no difference between bi and pan except for politics.

It REALLY depends on who you talk to.

 

I've met heaps of pan people on FetLife (like, hundreds?) and they identify as pan because (this is also @Pramana) they *don't have gender or sexual partner preferences*, as opposed to bisexual people who still have preferences as to gender, appearance, etc etc (that's how the pansexuals I have met described it. They felt bisexual was too restrictive and didn't encompass what they actually feel). Also when these pan people say they don't have sexual partner preferences, they mean they don't discriminate sexually based on appearance, gender etc. As long as that person is cool, friendly, kind, willing to have sex, then the pan person is up for it regardless of appearance, gender, whatever.

 

I also (as mentioned by Lost above) have seen the cases where bisexuals are insisting pan and bi are the same thing, and pansexuals are insisting they are different. To me (based on the people I've met on Fetlife) they are definitely different. Most bisexuals that I have met mean "I desire sex with certain people with vaginas and certain people with penises" whereas the pans I've known don't care about genitals or appearance or anything like that, those preferences just aren't there.

 

Obviously I don't speak for all people identifying as bi or pan, just the (many) that I have met on FetLife

 

As I side note, some people will know that I experience serious romantic attraction towards fictional characters (beyond what normal people experience) ..I define my attraction as panromantic instead of biromantic because it goes waaaaay beyond "male or female" and there are no preferences. I can fall romantically for fictional characters regardless of gender, race, species (as long as they have human sentience) appearance, background.. Anything. There is literally no preference, it just happens and BAM, a serious romantic attraction has formed. There is no preference at all though, and that doesn't make me "bi fictoromatic" or "a-fictoromantic" (lol) it makes me PAN-fictoromantic. The EXACT same thing would apply if I wanted sex with the fictional characters I fall for (I'd be pansexual for fictional characters lol), or if these feelings applied to real people as opposed to fictional characters (I'd be pansexual and panromantic)

 

Regardless of whether someone thinks bi and pan are the same or not, there are 100% people out there who don't necessarily have specific preferences when it comes to sex, in the same way there are literally no preferences for me when I fall for fictional people romantically. I'm not saying I fall for ALL fictional people romantically, but when I do fall for one it wasn't as a result of any specific preferences, it just happened. That's pretty much the same way the pansexuals I have met on FetLife described their desire for partnered sex. That doesn't make them asexual just because no specific preferences were involved, and they'd laugh if you tried to suggest that to them.. because it's ridiculous. 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Regardless of whether someone thinks bi and pan are the same or not, there are 100% people out there who don't necessarily have specific preferences when it comes to sex, in the same way there are literally no preferences for me when I fall for fictional people romantically. I'm not saying I fall for ALL fictional people romantically, but when I do fall for one it wasn't as a result of any specific preferences, it just happened. That's pretty much the same way the pansexuals I have met on FetLife described their desire for partnered sex. That doesn't make them asexual just because no specific preferences were involved, and they'd laugh if you tried to suggest that to them.. because it's ridiculous. 

A couple of points:

1. People who desire partnered sex without ever expressing sexual attraction: It seems to me that due to conflicting personal interpretations of this phenomenon, we should leave it open for those people to identify as either sex-favourable asexuals or as a variation of pansexual. I'm not prepared to tell people in this situation that they should identify one way or the other. I would just provide information pertaining to the fact that different people interpret the same phenomenon in different ways. Maybe sex-favourable asexual is a better label for some people in this situation, while pansexual is a better label for others.

2. Sexual attraction: Regardless of what one thinks on this issue, the indications are that AVEN will be keeping both the sexual attraction definition and the self-identification principle for the foreseeable future. Therefore, if one is concerned about people misidentifying as asexual due to narrow understandings of what sexual attraction is, then one should be prepared to provide better information to people about what sexual attraction is and the range of experiences which fall under it. My proposed way of explaining sexual attraction is designed to prompt people to think about whether or not they do in fact have experiences which fit under the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

2. Sexual attraction: Regardless of what one thinks on this issue, the indications are that AVEN will be keeping both the sexual attraction definition and the self-identification principle for the foreseeable future. Therefore, if one is concerned about people misidentifying as asexual due to narrow understandings of what sexual attraction is, then one should be prepared to provide better information to people about what sexual attraction is and the range of experiences which fall under it. My proposed way of explaining sexual attraction is designed to prompt people to think about whether or not they do in fact have experiences which fit under the concept.

That is going through too much trouble for an asexual site that declares there isn't a official definition of asexuality. If AVEN prefers confusion than confusion is what they will get. I'm just going to tell all those confused individuals that they are asexual. No point in getting too specific with anything.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

That is going through too much trouble for an asexual site that declares there isn't a official definition of asexuality. If AVEN prefers confusion than confusion is what they will get. I'm just going to tell all those confused individuals that they are asexual. No point in getting too specific with anything.

My understanding is that telling people that they are asexual is also contrary to the self-identification principle?

Share this post


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

My understanding is that telling people that they are asexual is also contrary to the self-identification principle?

I'm just going to say, "you sound asexual to me" which would be the truth since anyone can be asexual.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kai99 said:

I'm just going to say, "you sound asexual to me" which would be the truth since anyone can be asexual.

If you can't be bothered to put in some effort to educate people, then why comment at all?

Share this post


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

If you can't be bothered to put in some effort to educate people, then why comment at all?

I have actually. Put time explaining to young teens and obviously confused sexual individuals about asexuality and why it would be best to wait to identify, or if you must identify, keep an open mind and don't close yourself off to experiences just because you don't want to be proven wrong about your asexuality, or that more likely than not if you like sex than your probably not asexual. I got a warning trying to explain to what I thought was a confused sexual individual why they are probably not asexual. AVEN can make things a lot easier for people like me who do try to take time to educate individuals on asexuality by changing the definition to something more clearer. But no, AVEN just wants to sit back and proclaim that there is no official definition for asexuality and anyone who wants to be asexual is asexual. How can I argue against that? Since there is no real definition for asexuality, all I'm going to be doing now is arguing to people why they don't fit my definition of asexuality. Waste of time if you ask me. Since there is no official definition than anyone who wants to be asexual is asexual. I'm going with AVEN's rules now. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kai99 said:

I have actually. Put time explaining to young teens and obviously confused sexual individuals about asexuality and why it would be best to wait to identify, or if you must identify, keep an open mind and don't close yourself off to experiences just because you don't want to be proven wrong about your asexuality, or that more likely than not if you like sex than your probably not asexual. I got a warning trying to explain to what I thought was a confused sexual individual why they are probably not asexual. AVEN can make things a lot easier for people like me who do try to take time to educate individuals on asexuality by changing the definition to something more clearer. But no, AVEN just wants to sit back and proclaim that there is no official definition for asexuality and anyone who wants to be asexual is asexual. How can I argue against that? Since there is no real definition for asexuality, all I'm going to be doing now is arguing to people why they don't fit my definition of asexuality. Waste of time if you ask me. Since there is no official definition than anyone who wants to be asexual is asexual. I'm going with AVEN's rules now. 

Yep same here. I got a warn for trying to explain to someone (who wasn't even identifying as asexual) that losing interest in sex with age (especially with menopause, illness etc) is quite common for sexual people and that doesn't make someone asexual just because they lost interest in sex after 15 years of marriage during menopause etc. I said that sexual fluidity is actually very rare and not something that happens to almost everyone eventually when they get old enough and stop desiring sex (even though yes in some cases sexual fluidity does legitimately happen)

 

I got a warn because that was invalidating people's identities.. Even though no one in that thread was personally saying they were asexual or that they had experienced sexual fluidity :S

 

..And this is a site that is meant to be about education.

 

1 hour ago, Pramana said:
Quote

Kai99 said: I'm just going to say, "you sound asexual to me" which would be the truth since anyone can be asexual.  

 

Pramana said: If you can't be bothered to put in some effort to educate people, then why comment at all?

Wait, now you care about education? I thought you were in favour of total tolerance and inclusiveness when it comes to the definition, which literally means that anyone who wants to be asexual is asexual. You can't educate in that environment, you can literally only say "yes you're asexual" to everyone.. because literally anyone can be asexual based on AVEN's values surrounding the definition (or lack of one).

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pan. "Also when these pan people say they don't have sexual partner preferences, they mean they don't discriminate sexually based on appearance, gender etc. As long as that person is cool, friendly, kind, willing to have sex, then the pan person is up for it regardless of appearance, gender, whatever."

 

Do you not consider preferences regarding personality to still be preferences? Are there absolutely no common traits among your panfictive romances as far as their personality goes, for example? I am not trying to be argumentative. I'm just curious.

 

All the pansexual people I've spoken to or whose personal accounts I have read have pretty consistently said that personality/a person's mind is a big deal to them. Admittedly, I have not talked to pansexuals on Fetlife.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Are there absolutely no common traits among your panfictive romances as far as their personality goes, for example? I am not trying to be argumentative. I'm just curious.

Nope. Sometimes I even found them deplorable or annoying before the romantic attraction developed :o I do consider personality traits preferences, yes, but when it comes to my fictoromanticism (I know how ridiculous that term sounds, lol), I was never attracted or drawn in by certain aspects of any personality or mannerisms or anything like that. They're literally just people I'm observing (sometimes even actively disliking) until suddenly I realise romantic attraction has developed and it's like ... oh okay, now I'm obsessed and besotted. (obviously that's extreme, I'm not saying everyone becomes obsessed and besotted when romantic attraction develops for them - and I only do when it comes to fictional people; I deal with meat life romance much better.. well, I do now anyway.)

 

I'm not saying a pansexual person (the ones that I've met on Fet anyway) will have indiscriminate sex with literally anyone (if someone is an arsehole, cruel, etc they probably won't be someone a sensible person wants to associate with regardless) but that things like gender and appearance etc don't matter to the pansexual. It's the person inside that draws them in, and outside factors (genitals, gender, appearance, physical traits etc) aren't something that's an issue in any way. I've seen MANY people here try to define this experience as asexual, but no, it's pansexual. (edit: I understand not all pansexuals identify that way but I personally believe that's what the term means in the truest sense of the word. It's loving and/or desiring sex with the person on the inside, with no consideration or preference as to external factors)

 

If we are going to say personality traits are "preferences" then technically an asexual IS someone who will have indiscriminate sex with literally anyone if they literally have "no preferences". Whereas a pan person may choose some people over others (despite not caring about genitals or the bodily appearance or anything like that, it's the inside that matters) an asexual must be someone who will literally screw anyone, yes? I think it was Pramana who mentioned before that an asexual who desires sex might only choose to have sex for pleasure with their partner because that's most convenient or whatever.. But they must have that particular partner for a reason, right? Or did they fall in love with that person so that's why they only have sex with that person? ..in that case, that's still a preference. A preference to have sex with the person they love. A preference for the ease of that, whatever. I'm just saying, this idea of defining "sexual attraction" as your partner preferences/sexual preferences etc is silly, because the moment you've chosen to have sex with a particular person for pleasure you are doing so because of some sort of preference: "I'd prefer to have sex with this person than not have sex at all" at the most basic level. Someone without literally ANY preferences is someone who will just have sex with anyone indiscriminately no matter what.. and that's obviously not asexual.

 

Then we go back to a vocal sexual member of this site who sadly has now left.. She specifically said sexual attraction was never a factor for her. She openly admitted to putting ads in Craig's List and meeting people she'd never spoken to other than arranging the time and place just to have sex with them. They'd turn up and literally nothing would matter; their looks, personality etc were all irrelevant. She'd still have sex with them because she wanted sex (she's been open about this in the forums before) ..Funnily enough as a result of this sort of thing, a few people here tried to tell her she should consider if she's asexual, lol. Because yeah, that's where the "no sexual attraction" definition gets you if you're defining it as preferences as to who you have sex with. (that's not aimed at you specifically Xeno, just at the topic in general)

2 people like this

Share this post


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

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

Then I guess we are using the term essentialism and constructivism in different meanings. The "essentialism" I was using refers to the notion that sexual orientation has some biological factor along with social factors. The "constructivism" I was using refers to the notion that there is no biological factors at all. A complete denial of the biological factors is the one I find dangerous for the said reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pan. I would say people who enjoy indiscriminately having sex and call themselves asexual are either willfully or ignorantly going against the spirit of the terminology. I just don't think they face the same issues as the asexual community and I would think it would be difficult for them to interact with the community in a meaningful way longterm. I also don't think asexuals who are willing to compromise with safe/trusted partners can really be compared to a pansexual person who may actively seek out sex with someone on the basis of certain appealing internal qualities (personality, intellect, whatever). Still, I do see what you mean about the potential loopholes in @Pramana's idea.

 

I don't think fictoromanticism is all that ridiculous of a word. It seems more useful than some of the terminology I've seen floating around the internet. I admire your openness about these things. I would be far too embarrassed to talk about my fictional interests most of the time. 

 

Again, I really don't want to argue/debate anymore, but I am curious about your stance on one more specific topic if you'd be willing to indulge me. @Mysticus Insanus, I know the clock is ticking down for you, but I'd be interested in your opinion you'd like to weigh in. Well, really anyone who is pro exclusively desire-based definition is more than welcome to answer.

 

So, imagine a scenario in which you have a stone butch lesbian, and a homoromantic asexual woman. The stone butch lesbian and the homoromantic asexual woman both say the same thing, "I have sex to please my girlfriend. I like making her happy by giving her pleasure, but I don't like receiving sexual stimulation." Using the innate desire-based definition alone, how would you meaningfully differentiate between the two? Who is right, and who is wrong in your opinion?

Share this post


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

So, imagine a scenario in which you have a stone butch lesbian, and a homoromantic asexual woman. The stone butch lesbian and the homoromantic asexual woman both say the same thing, "I have sex to please my girlfriend. I like making her happy by giving her pleasure, but I don't like receiving sexual stimulation." Using the innate desire-based definition alone, how would you meaningfully differentiate between the two? Who is right, and who is wrong in your opinion?

The stone butch lesbian desires partnered sex even though she doesn't desire reciprocal sexual interaction.  She could very well get off on her partner getting off.  The gal may describe herself as such to make it clear that she definitely wants this type of sexual interaction.  She has an interest and therefore a desire for partnered sex.

 

The asexual would rather bake a pizza or walk the dog or go out to the martini bar or ... anything and everything that is more interesting and appealing than sex.  It's not because she doesn't feel attraction to her partner, it is because she has no desire for THE SEX for her own sake. 

 

I remember Geo and Skullery Maid saying "attraction is attraction is attraction ... it's what you want to do with the attraction that differentiates one person from another".  Both women could be equally attracted to their partners (if there was such a way to measure that), but one could have had a general desire to enter into a sexual relationship (long before they met their partner) while the other has never specifically sought out a sexual relationship.

 

Lucinda

Share this post


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

The stone butch lesbian desires partnered sex even though she doesn't desire reciprocal sexual interaction.  She could very well get off on her partner getting off.  The gal may describe herself as such to make it clear that she definitely wants this type of sexual interaction.  She has an interest and therefore a desire for partnered sex.

 

The asexual would rather bake a pizza or walk the dog or go out to the martini bar or ... anything and everything that is more interesting and appealing than sex.  It's not because she doesn't feel attraction to her partner, it is because she has no desire for THE SEX for her own sake. 

 

I remember Geo and Skullery Maid saying "attraction is attraction is attraction ... it's what you want to do with the attraction that differentiates one person from another".  Both women could be equally attracted to their partners (if there was such a way to measure that), but one could have had a general desire to enter into a sexual relationship (long before they met their partner) while the other has never specifically sought out a sexual relationship.

 

Lucinda

How can you conclude, with two people who have described their feelings about sex with their girlfriend in exactly the same way, that one is experiencing innate desire and the other is not? Neither person has made any reference to personal sexual pleasure, but both have admitted to being happy to please their partner.

 

Otherwise, in your opinion, it comes down to how they prioritize sex in relation to other activities, having some faith in how they self-identify, and if they've sought out a relationship with someone who they know is sexual?

 

Edit: Actually, I realized I answered my own question, unless you have some disagreement with it.

 

Edited by Xenobot
I am a derp.

Share this post


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

How can you conclude, with two people who have described their feelings about sex with their girlfriend in exactly the same way, that one is experiencing innate desire and the other is not? Neither person has made any reference to personal sexual pleasure, but both have admitted to being happy to please their partner.

 

Why wouldn't you simply ask them?   Otherwise, you're dealing with hypotheticals, and that doesn't work when you're dealing with peoples' feelings.  

Share this post


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

Why wouldn't you simply ask them?   Otherwise, you're dealing with hypotheticals, and that doesn't work when you're dealing with peoples' feelings.  

So, you wouldn't be able to conclude whether or not they are experiencing innate desire based on how they've already described their feelings on the matter? What would you need to ask them exactly? I realize this is an unlikely scenario. It's more of a thought experiment, but also, it's based upon the fact that sometimes you really do encounter people who identify their sexuality differently but describe the same feeling. It could be that the language they are using to describe their subjective experience is inaccurate, or that one is using the wrong label for their experience.

Share this post


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

So, imagine a scenario in which you have a stone butch lesbian, and a homoromantic asexual woman. The stone butch lesbian and the homoromantic asexual woman both say the same thing, "I have sex to please my girlfriend. I like making her happy by giving her pleasure, but I don't like receiving sexual stimulation." Using the innate desire-based definition alone, how would you meaningfully differentiate between the two? Who is right, and who is wrong in your opinion?

By the question "If your partner never wants to get pleasured by you again, would that bother you in any way?"

 

Ace gal - "No. If she doesn't want it, what would be the point of us having sex in the first place? I'm just doing this for her sake, after all."

Stone gal - "Hell yes, you better believe that would be a problem. Do I look like I want a sexless relationship?!"

 

Basically, if the thought of never having partnered sex again bothers you... then it's pretty damn likely you simply aren't asexual.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

So, you wouldn't be able to conclude whether or not they are experiencing innate desire based on how they've already described their feelings on the matter? What would you need to ask them exactly? I realize this is an unlikely scenario. It's more of a thought experiment, but also, it's based upon the fact that sometimes you really do encounter people who identify their sexuality differently but describe the same feeling. It could be that the language they are using to describe their subjective experience is inaccurate, or that one is using the wrong label for their experience.

You've already asked how we could conclude any difference between the two, so why are you now asking why we couldn't conclude there's a difference?  

 

You say it could be that they are describing their subjective experience (as though they could describe their objective experience) inaccurately.  But if you wonder about that, ask them.

 

You really have to decide whether you're positing a hypothetical situation, or talking about real people.  Hypothetical?  Don't.   Real?  Ask.   People are messy pots of different feelings, not inanimate objects with set properties.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

By the question "If your partner never wants to get pleasured by you again, would that bother you in any way?"

 

Ace gal - "No. If she doesn't want it, what would be the point of us having sex in the first place? I'm just doing this for her sake, after all."

Stone gal - "Hell yes, you better believe that would be a problem. Do I look like I want a sexless relationship?!"

 

Basically, if the thought of never having partnered sex again bothers you... then it's pretty damn likely you simply aren't asexual.

Ah, I like your answer. No assumptions, just a straightforward question to gauge innate sexual desire. That seems like a good way to go about it. I'm guessing you felt that question was necessary because the initial statement about their feelings was too ambiguous to make a judgement of?

Share this post


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

 

You've already asked how we could conclude any difference between the two, so why are you now asking why we couldn't conclude there's a difference?  

 

You say it could be that they are describing their subjective experience (as though they could describe their objective experience) inaccurately.  But if you wonder about that, ask them.

 

You really have to decide whether you're positing a hypothetical situation, or talking about real people.  Hypothetical?  Don't.   Real?  Ask.   People are messy pots of different feelings, not inanimate objects with set properties.   

I was curious to know how people might address this hypothetical problem from within the framework of a desire-based view of asexuality. Part of that is understanding why you guys might find the provided information sufficient or insufficient. So yes, if you feel you can make some determination based on the information provided, I'd be curious to hear it. If you feel you cannot make some determination based on the information provided, I'd be curious to hear how you'd resolve that.

Share this post


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

@Pan. I would say people who enjoy indiscriminately having sex and call themselves asexual are either willfully or ignorantly going against the spirit of the terminology. I just don't think they face the same issues as the asexual community and I would think it would be difficult for them to interact with the community in a meaningful way longterm. I also don't think asexuals who are willing to compromise with safe/trusted partners can really be compared to a pansexual person who may actively seek out sex with someone on the basis of certain appealing internal qualities (personality, intellect, whatever). Still, I do see what you mean about the potential loopholes in @Pramana's idea.

I agree with the approach @Xenobot takes here. The stories I've read of sex-favourable asexuals concern people whose lack of sexual attraction for their partners causes problems for them in relationships. That is very different from the situation of a sexual person who doesn't experience sexual attraction but who desires and pursues sexual activities in an indiscriminate fashion with random people. Thus, even though both technically fit under the definition of asexuality as people who don't experience sexual attraction, contextual factors separate one from the other. Sex-favourable asexuals have asexual-type problems/experiences, and could benefit from participation in the asexual community in order to receive support for those problems. The sexual who pursues indiscriminate sex does not. Realistically, because contextual factors affect the outcome in this way, there probably isn't going to be a definition of asexuality which is entirely adequate for the task of capturing all and only those people who are asexual. It's a backwards approach to tell some people they can't use the term even though they have asexual-type problems/experiences merely because one wants to have an airtight definition. The presence or absence of asexual problems and experiences is what's most relevant in my view, because that is what motivates people to identify as asexual and form asexual communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2017 at 7:43 PM, Pan. said:

Yep same here. I got a warn for trying to explain to someone (who wasn't even identifying as asexual) that losing interest in sex with age (especially with menopause, illness etc) is quite common for sexual people and that doesn't make someone asexual just because they lost interest in sex after 15 years of marriage during menopause etc. I said that sexual fluidity is actually very rare and not something that happens to almost everyone eventually when they get old enough and stop desiring sex (even though yes in some cases sexual fluidity does legitimately happen)

 

I got a warn because that was invalidating people's identities.. Even though no one in that thread was personally saying they were asexual or that they had experienced sexual fluidity :S

 

..And this is a site that is meant to be about education.

Seriously? You got a warning for that....oh, wow. Just...wow (smh, stunned, and obviously at a loss for words)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now