Definition discussion.

[Xenobot]

11 minutes ago, Sally said:

No, I don't purposefully do that.  That would take more trouble with a post than I want to put in.  But maybe your previous analogy was as inapposite as this one.    

 

As far as sounding "defensive", I actually think I more likely sound offensive.  It's best not to psychologize peoples' posts.   

Really? Are we going to pretend now that people having internal interpretations/perceptions of another person's emotions is not a completely natural and normal part of socializing and empathizing but is in fact "psychologizing"?

[Sally]

1 minute ago, Xenobot said:

Really? Are we going to pretend now that people having internal interpretations/perceptions of another person's emotions is not a --  completely natural and normal part of socializing and empathizing but is in fact "psychologizing"?

You may have whatever interpretations/perceptions of others' emotions that you wish.  But when you opine -- and I'm deliberately using that rather pretentious word -- that they are being defensive, that's not showing empathy, it's psychologizing.  It's  used by those (many categories of those) who don't want to be blunt and honest and say that they think what you said is fucked.   So they say "you sound defensive," which they think will be taken as being sympathetic, whereas it's really patronizing.   

 

Some of us have been around academia enough to recognize that shit and react to it.  I spent 12 years in that world.  Some of it is very worthwhile and has added to the good in the world.  Some of  it is...fucked.    

 

[Xenobot]

3 minutes ago, Sally said:

You may have whatever interpretations/perceptions of others' emotions that you wish.  But when you opine -- and I'm deliberately using that rather pretentious word -- that they are being defensive, that's not showing empathy, it's psychologizing.  It's  used by those (many categories of those) who don't want to be blunt and honest and say that they think what you said is fucked.   So they say "you sound defensive," which they think will be taken as being sympathetic, whereas it's really patronizing.   

 

Some of us have been around academia enough to recognize that shit and react to it.  I spent 12 years in that world.  Some of it is very worthwhile and has added to the good in the world.  Some of  it is...fucked.    

 

I only mentioned my apparently incorrect perception of your emotional state to explain my motivation for saying what I said, and to clarify what I said. I don't even know what to say to you at this point because no matter what I try to say you misunderstand me. Why in the world would you think that I "thought what you said was fucked" in reference to something as basic as you objecting to the desirist thing? The desirist/attractionist thing was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and when I got the impression that didn't come across via text, I told you to relax and explained that I was not being serious about the terminology. I see how it sounded kind of patronizing in retrospect, and I apologized. What more do you want from me exactly?

[Pramana]

16 hours ago, Pan. said:

I don't know how much you know about Skullery (one of the most vocal sexuals we have ever had on AVEN, and she was here for many years until she gave up on us mainly because of issues surrounding the values on AVEN) but she's one of the most hypsersexual people I know, and she's always been very open about that.

Returning to the issue of evidence from sexuals on AVEN, I don't wish to overstate my view on this, which is simply that there are some reasons to think this sample group may be biased in some ways. Simply the fact of living in relationships involving sexual compromises could alter one's experiences and impressions of human sexuality. Again, in saying this I'm merely arguing that the views of sexuals both on and off AVEN should be taken into account. And my main motivation is the fact that there seems to be a discrepancy with respect to people's ability to understand what sexual attraction is, between those who post on AVEN versus the general public. The more I think about it, though, the more I think it's mainly due to the fact that AVEN is probably the only place where a group of lay people regularly talk about and try to define "sexual attraction". Much like other abstract terms such as "art" or "justice," it can seem unproblematic when you don't discuss it but may appear to slip away when you start to interrogate it. I don't think "sexual attraction" is as difficult as "art" or "justice," though. I strongly suspect that my proposal (preferences with respect to potential sexual partners based on gender and/or other personal characteristics) is sufficiently clear to be understood by the vast majority of people and that the vast majority of sexuals would answer in the affirmative.

I'm not that familiar with Skullery Maid because we were never active on AVEN at the same time, although my objections to some of her views motivated my original posts in this thread. Specifically, in the posts I quoted, she's highly dismissive of people who experience asexuality as a result of mental health conditions or atypical personality traits, and she opposes the existence of the gray area on AVEN (hence, is highly dismissive of my experiences). From the tone of those posts, I can she how she would run into conflict with AVEN over values. 

[nanogretchen4]

If asexuals don't experience "attraction" but want to have sex just like everyone else, all the mixed relationship incompatibility problems are solved. Asexuals in mixed relationships can keep both themselves and their partner happy by having totally fun, enjoyable sex about twice a week. No more misery, no more divorce, no more pesky small compatible dating pool. It's a miracle!

 

[Pramana]

12 hours ago, nanogretchen4 said:

If asexuals don't experience "attraction" but want to have sex just like everyone else, all the mixed relationship incompatibility problems are solved. Asexuals in mixed relationships can keep both themselves and their partner happy by having totally fun, enjoyable sex about twice a week. No more misery, no more divorce, no more pesky small compatible dating pool. It's a miracle!

 

My impression is that the vast majority of asexuals experience neither desire for partnered sex nor sexual attraction. I don't have any statistics, but I've only heard a few stories, which leads me to think that the phenomenon of people experiencing desire for partnered sex without ever experiencing sexual attraction is very rare to start with, and it's only a portion of those people who want to identify as asexual, so I assume we're speaking about a tiny percentage of the asexual population.

I would suggest that a community may be judged based on how well it listens to and considers the interests of minorities within it. Ignoring these people, simply because doing so would make it easier for us to define asexuality, would be unethical.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Pramana said:

My impression is that the vast majority of asexuals experience neither desire for partnered sex nor sexual attraction. I don't have any statistics, but I've only heard a few stories, which leads me to think that the "sexual desire in the absence of attraction" phenomena is very rare to start with, and it's only a portion of those people who want to identify as asexual, so I assume we're speaking about a tiny percentage of the asexual population.

Desire in the absence of attraction is very normal and common, or else why would heterosexual guys end up having sex with other men in prison? (That's the desire for partnered sex overriding gender preferences) ..Take any regular sexual person and leave them alone on an island for ten years: almost every sexual person alive will miss having partnered sex and desire the intimacy and pleasure partnered sex brings, even though there isn't a "hot" person around to be sexually attracted to. 

 

In the brothel I worked at, we had some.. er.. very unattractive ladies. One lady was very overweight and had hacked all her hair off so it was short and patchy, one was severely anorexic with a deformity in her jaw, and another looked a bit like Fiona off Shrek (when she's an ogre) just without the green skin. However men didn't care. If they were horny and some of the better-looking girls were 'occupied', a client would just choose one of the less attractive girls to have sex with. They went to the brothel desiring have sex, despite not having anyone they were specifically attracted to when they desired the sex, and often ended up with an unattractive lady if they didn't want to wait.

 

The desire for partnered sex most definitely can exist in the absence of sexual attraction, and many sexual people can still have and enjoy sex with someone they don't find attractive in any way if they're desiring partnered sex. 

 

Regarding the whole "asexuals not experiencing sexual attraction but desiring partnered sex" thing:

 

Every single romantic asexual I have met here has partner preferences, they just don't want sex. Even panromantic aces have preferences as to behaviour, humour, lifestyle, etc. And yes, aspects of appearance are often part of those preferences. So if partner preferences (the way you seem to be defining sexual attraction based on your previous comments?) are suddenly something that asexuals can't have, then all of a sudden every romantic asexual who has partner preferences isn't asexual, despite having no desire to have partnered sex ever? 

 

And again, are you saying that someone who desires indiscriminate sex with literally anyone in the world, no matter how diseased, dangerous, or smelly they are, would be asexual? Also I guess age wouldn't be a thing, they'd desire sex as much with a 12 year old as they would with a 30 year old :S

 

 I'll quote myself in case you missed this when I asked on the previous page because I explained it better there

 

 

 

[binary suns]

human sexuality is not something which can be exclusively defined. 

 

 

this does not mean that we must accept everyone just because they say they are some thing. that's silly! 

 

 

what it means is that it is, practically speaking, expecting there to be one definition that rules them all is utterly useless and does nothing but aggravate your own frustrations. 

 

 

[NoLongerActive1234]

@Pan. I'd say that those who can desire partnered sex like that without sexual attraction usually can have both experiences though. Never ever being sexually attracted to anyone does not sound common to me. I imagine that for some that ID as asexuals that do desire partnered sex but do not find anyone sexually attractive there seem to always be a disconnect between the preference/looks/appreciations/romantic feelings and sex.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

@Pan. I'd say that those who can desire partnered sex like that without sexual attraction usually can have both experiences though. Never ever being sexually attracted to anyone does not sound common to me. I imagine that for some that ID as asexuals that do desire partnered sex but do not find anyone sexually attractive there seem to always be a disconnect between the preference/looks/appreciations/romantic feelings and sex.

It depends on how you're defining sexual attraction though (as always.)

 

If you're saying sexual attraction is "preferences" as to who you have sex with, then someone who doesn't experience that then just has no preferences. They'll literally have sex with *anyone*. So now we are saying "an asexual is someone who will have sex with literally anyone without preferences"? 

 

.. and if they say "well no, I won't have sex with someone who is very smelly or dirty, that would be a turn-off" or "we'll, yeah I don't experience sexual attraction but I obviously have standards, I won't have sex with someone who is very overweight" or "I won't have sex with strangers, it has to be friends I trust, even though I don't experience sexual attraction" then they're all still voicing preferences. One prefers fit people over fat people, one prefers clean people to unwashed people, one preference friends to strangers (and there are people who prefer the opposite to those things as well).. These are all still partner preferences. Every single self-identifying asexual I have ever met who says they desire sex but don't experience "sexual attraction" still always has preferences, in the same way any sexual person has preferences as to who they have sex with. 

[binary suns]

@Pan. I am sorry that I do not have time to read the whole thread in detail, and do not have a memory which tracks these kinds of details. But do you intend to press the idea that desire is the end-all for defining asexuality? and also for orientation as gay/by/straight? 

[Pramana]

9 hours ago, Pan. said:

Desire in the absence of attraction is very normal and common, or else why would heterosexual guys end up having sex with other men in prison? (That's the desire for partnered sex overriding gender preferences) ..Take any regular sexual person and leave them alone on an island for ten years: almost every sexual person alive will miss having partnered sex and desire the intimacy and pleasure partnered sex brings, even though there isn't a "hot" person around to be sexually attracted to. 

 

And again, are you saying that someone who desires indiscriminate sex with literally anyone in the world, no matter how diseased, dangerous, or smelly they are, would be asexual? Also I guess age wouldn't be a thing, they'd desire sex as much with a 12 year old as they would with a 30 year old :S

 

 I'll quote myself in case you missed this when I asked on the previous page because I explained it better there

 

I meant the "sexual desire in the absence of attraction phenomenon" just as shorthand for cases where people experience sexual desire without ever experiencing sexual attraction, which is very rare. I realize that people often experience sexual desire without experiencing sexual attraction; I've stated that many times and it's a major part of how I understand sexual attraction to work.

I'll quote myself from an earlier post in this thread:

"Following that idea, the simplest way I can explain the relation between sexual desire and sexual attraction is like this:

Imagine a heterosexual women (we'll call her Jane, because I'm creative with names) is stranded on a desert island. After ten years:
Scenario One: Two more people, a man and a woman, arrive on the island. Jane pursues a sexual relationship with the man, because following her orientation she prefers to have sex with men. In this scenario, sexual attraction causes Jane to desire partnered sex with the man instead of the woman.
Scenario Two. Only one person, another woman, arrives on the island. Jane pursues a sexual relationship with the woman, because Jane desires partnered sex, even though she is not a lesbian and is not attracted to the woman. In this scenario, sexual attraction does not operate, because there is no one for Jane to be attracted to. Desire for partnered sex causes Jane to desire sex with the woman.

In this manner, we should be able explain sexual attraction in a way that is clear and straightforward. The fact that we've confused ourselves about it isn't a good reason to ignore the concept or conflate it with sexual desire. There's a risk in favouring explanations which are too simple, and which do a disservice to understanding the complexity of human sexual experience contrary to our educational prerogative.

Looked at in this way, I imagine the percentage of people who experience sexual desire but who never experience sexual attraction is quite small. Returning to the question of whether they are better described as sex-favourable asexuals/gray-asexuals or sexuals/pansexuals, I don't know enough about the psychology to really take a position. What I do know is that some people in this group want to call themselves asexuals/asexual spectrum, while others want to call themselves sexuals/sexual spectrum. And some people on both sides want to participate in asexual communities."

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Meow. said:

human sexuality is not something which can be exclusively defined. 

 

 

this does not mean that we must accept everyone just because they say they are some thing. that's silly! 

 

 

what it means is that it is, practically speaking, expecting there to be one definition that rules them all is utterly useless and does nothing but aggravate your own frustrations. 

Yes I agree. In the same way homosexuality can be defined as "desiring sex with people of the same gender" but also "only desiring sex with people of the opposite gender" it can mean both things.

 

I mean, there isn't a defining factor in any sexual orientation. A heterosexual man can literally ONLY desire sex with other men, and never ever desire sex with women. And it's quite common for lesbian women to literally only ever desire sex with men and have absolutely no desire to have sex with other women. It would be asking too much for these sexual orientations to only have ONE definition. It's only fair that each orientation mean multiple, opposite things. In the same way an asexual can be someone who will have sex with literally anyone on the planet without preferences, and an asexual can also be someone who has no desire to have sex with anyone, ever. Each orientation means one thing and also means it's total opposite, and that's just how human sexuality works

 

(I'm not directing that specifically at you Meow, just at the topic in general. It seems people are in favour of asexuality meaning two opposite things - I'm just pointing out the flaws in that idea with my above sarcasm)

 

5 minutes ago, Meow. said:

@Pan. I am sorry that I do not have time to read the whole thread in detail, and do not have a memory which tracks these kinds of details. But do you intend to press the idea that desire is the end-all for defining asexuality? and also for orientation as gay/by/straight? 

Okay, so the official definition for homosexual in English is: "sexually attracted to people of the same gender" - however everyone automatically knows that mean "a homosexual man desires sex with men". You don't get people saying "a homosexual is a man who only desires sex with women".

 

And yes, sexual people desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. Sexual attraction can be something that helps them determine the direction of their sexual desire (whether at men, women, both, etc).

 

Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever.. so whether or not they experience sexual attraction really just doesn't matter. Sexual attraction is meaningless when it comes to asexuality.

 

An asexual isn't someone who desires indiscriminate sex with just anyone. An asexual is someone who has no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. Yet (as has always been the case in these threads), many people want asexual to mean BOTH things. A desire for indiscriminate sex with literally anyone, AND no desire to have partnered sex for pleasure, ever.

 

In German, orientations are defined by which gender/s you desire sex with. Here is the definition of asexuality on AVENde, the German version of 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! 

 

http://www.aven-info.de/asexualitaet/

[Pramana]

5 hours ago, Pan. said:

And yes, sexual people desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. Sexual attraction can be something that helps them determine the direction of their sexual desire (whether at men, women, both, etc).

 

Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever.. so whether or not they experience sexual attraction really just doesn't matter. Sexual attraction is meaningless when it comes to asexuality.

 

An asexual isn't someone who desires indiscriminate sex with just anyone. An asexual is someone who has no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. Yet (as has always been the case in these threads), many people want asexual to mean BOTH things. A desire for indiscriminate sex with literally anyone, AND no desire to have partnered sex for pleasure, ever.

It doesn't follow from the fact that someone doesn't have preferences with regard to sexual partners but still experiences sexual desire that they "desire indiscriminate sex with literally anyone," it just means that when they do desire partnered sex (which may not be very often), they don't differentiate based on sexual preferences. Plus, I doubt very many people truly fit into this category. If you really press people, I suspect most will find that they have some preferences (contrary to the claim of those on AVEN that a large percentage of sexual people don't experience sexual attraction or don't know what it is). But I don't want to have to say that it's impossible for there to be someone who never experiences sexual attraction but who still desires partnered sex. And I want to keep conceptual space open for such people to identify how they would like, given that there are conflicting views and a limited amount of knowledge about this phenomenon. Realistically, there are always going to be occasional borderline cases such as this which sit in-between, and potentially fit into two or more, conceptual models. 

Regarding the German asexuality site, I wouldn't put too much weight on that without knowing more about the language and culture. Plus, it's only one asexuality group. Others use sexual attraction. The most commonly accepted definition among asexuality researchers is an attraction-based one. These researchers view both sexual attraction and sexual desire as important for determining asexuality. A desire-based definition has been raised as one among a few potential alternatives. But none of the main researchers currently follow a desire-based model. For that reason, I argue that an and/or attraction and desire model is the farthest that one can reasonably go on the basis of present evidence. This is shown in a detailed summation of current research recently provided by a Project Team member in another post which I've linked below. I'd consider changing my view if there's a shift in academic opinion to favour a desire-only definition, but until that happens, I will view sexual attraction as part of the definition of asexuality.
 

 

[Guest]

This will be the fourth time I've tried to comment over the past 5 hours. I've literally lost hundreds (probably thousands) of words to AVEN failing, and have wasted more time than I should on a topic I've already beaten to death over the past few years. I'm going to have to make this the last response and then bow out, because I'm way too busy with work to keep repeatedly losing posts as a result of the forums here failing. Continuing to discuss this issue just isn't worth the time I'm wasting. (I also wrote all this on my phone, so yeah.. auto correct T_T)

 

6 hours ago, Pramana said:

Returning to the question of whether they are better described as sex-favourable asexuals/gray-asexuals or sexuals/pansexuals, I don't know enough about the psychology to really take a position. What I do know is that some people in this group want to call themselves asexuals/asexual spectrum, while others want to call themselves sexuals/sexual spectrum. And some people on both sides want to participate in asexual communities."

 

I'm sure there are women who call themselves lesbians who literally have no interest in having sex with women and only desire sex with men. Sure other lesbians, as well as plenty of straight people, will probably say to her "you're no different than a straight person" etc etc. But the fact is, for some reason she feels like a lesbian so meh, her identifying as lesbian won't exactly destroy the community or anything lol.

 

Everyone still knows that lesbians are women who desire sex with other women - her identifying as lesbian doesn't change that.

 

All I want (all I've ever wanted in these discussions) is a definition that accurately defines asexuality in a way that is clearly and easily understood, and that doesn't mean asexuality is 100 different things depending on how you personally define sexual attraction.

 

Even though hetero/homo/bi are defined (in English) by "sexual attraction" no one tries to pick that apart and say "because I define sexual attraction like this, gay men are men who only desire sex with women".. no one does that. Yet for asexuality, people have free reign to do that. That's what I want to stop, and that will only stop with a desire-based definition.

 

If the definition of asexuality is "no innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure" and someone comes along and says "well I love having sex but I'm going to identify as asexual because I don't care who I have sex with".. it's not like they're going to get thrown out of the community or won't be welcome on AVEN or anything. They'll just be in the same situation as the lesbian who only desires sex with men and wouldn't have sex with a woman. This definition isn't about trying to exclude people or not let certain people on AVEN or anything, anyone can hang out here if they feel this community is a place they want to be. But we want a definition that doesn't mean "anyone who wants to be asexual is asexual based on their own personal definition of sexual attraction" because that criteria doesn't apply to any other sexual identity.

 

"Lesbian" doesn't mean "anyone who wants to be lesbian is lesbian depending on how you define sexual attraction".. it means a woman who prefers sex with other women and prefers to have sexual relationships with other women etc. 

 

I also just want to say, as you keep saying that people here just don't understand sexual attraction or have talked about it too much and confused ourselves etc.. That's not the case in the case of people like me, Mysticus, Skulls, Sally, Circles and co. The issue is that no matter how you define it, there are people who say "no, that's not what sexual attraction is". There are people want to argue and say that "no, sexual attraction is lust, which means asexuals are actually people who only desire sex for fun but not because they feel lust" There are people who say "no, sexual attraction is looking at sexy people and getting horny, asexuals just don't experience that.".. then there are people who say "no, sexual attraction is being able to find people 'hot' and 'sexy' - it's nothing to do with whether or not you want sex, it's how attractive you find people and the words you use to describe that.. Asexuals just don't find people 'hot' but they desire sex like anyone else, it's biological. All humans can want sex" etc etc etc (those are all examples I have seen many, many times on AVEN during my years discussing this topic).. That's where the sexual attraction definition gets you, regardless of how you personally define sexual attraction or how a scholar once defined it or how some psychologists who adhere to a particular school of thought define it. And regardless of how any of them define it, it doesn't change the fact that "sexually attracted to the same gender as yourself" in English is automatically interpreted as "desires sex with people of the same gender/has sexual relationships with people of the same gender/sexually interested in people of the same gender".

 

Again, no one looks at the term "homosexual" and thinks "that's a man who only desires sex with women". No one hears "I'm sexually attracted to men" and thinks "that means you only want sex with women with short hair.." they KNOW you mean you're sexually interested in men, you desire sex with men, you want your sexual relationships to be with men. They don't need to pick apart the definition of sexual attraction to know that.. but that's what everyone does for asexuality. They pick "sexual attraction" apart to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

 

Quote

"Imagine a heterosexual women (we'll call her Jane, because I'm creative with names) is stranded on a desert island. After ten years:
Scenario One: Two more people, a man and a woman, arrive on the island. Jane pursues a sexual relationship with the man, because following her orientation she prefers to have sex with men. In this scenario, sexual attraction causes Jane to desire partnered sex with the man instead of the woman.
Scenario Two. Only one person, another woman, arrives on the island. Jane pursues a sexual relationship with the woman, because Jane desires partnered sex, even though she is not a lesbian and is not attracted to the woman. In this scenario, sexual attraction does not operate, because there is no one for Jane to be attracted to. Desire for partnered sex causes Jane to desire sex with the woman.

 

Here, you're defining sexual attraction as her gender preference. Maybe the guy is super overweight and bald so Jane has no interest in having sex with him, despite her being straight and him being a guy. Just because he has a penis doesn't automatically mean she'll want to screw him.

 

Regardless, Jane desires partnered sex. She misses sex when she's alone on the island and yes, would like to have a romantic interest there who she could enjoy sexual intimacy with (it turns out Jane is one of the many, many sexual people who are actually only interested in having sex with people they has a romantic bond with. She doesn't just want sex with randoms, that's a total turn-off to Jane) ..But yeah, she still wishes she had a lover there she could share sexual intimacy with, sometimes at least. 

 

Also, depending on how sexually-driven Jane is, in the second scenario you provided she may indeed have sex with the woman even if Jane is straight, because having sex with someone else just feels better than masturbating and hey, someone else is now available to have sex with. That's not at all uncommon among sexuals. Many sexual people have sex outside their sexual preferences, for multiple reasons. That's just their innate desire to connect sexually with others overriding their gender preferences.

 

*Whereas* if Jane was asexual, partnered sexual activity wouldn't be something she misses or desires. She has no desire to connect sexually with others, so while she may fantasize about having a friend or even romantic interest, she has no interest in actually connecting sexually with the object of her fantasies. Even if like, Brad Pitt and Megan Fox turned up the island, she wouldn't think "oooo conventionally attractive people for me to have sex with" (not that sexual people think like that, but you catch my drift) ..Sex with those people still wouldn't be something she desires (regardless of how attractive she finds them) because she's ace.

 

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

It doesn't follow from the fact that someone doesn't have preferences with regard to sexual partners but still experiences sexual desire that they "desire indiscriminate sex with literally anyone," it just means that when they do desire partnered sex (which may not be very often), they don't differentiate based on sexual preferences. Plus, I doubt very many people truly fit into this category. If you really press people, I suspect most will find that they have some preferences (contrary to the claim of those on AVEN that a large percentage of sexual people don't experience sexual attraction or don't know what it is). But I don't want to have to say that it's impossible for there to be someone who never experiences sexual attraction but who still desires partnered sex. And I want to keep conceptual space open for such people to identify how they would like, given that there are conflicting views and a limited amount of knowledge about this phenomenon. Realistically, there are always going to be occasional borderline cases such as this which sit in-between, and potentially fit into two or more, conceptual models. 

Regarding the German asexuality site, I wouldn't put too much weight on that without knowing more about the language and culture. Plus, it's only one asexuality group. Others use sexual attraction. The most commonly accepted definition among asexuality researchers is an attraction-based one. These researchers view both sexual attraction and sexual desire as important for determining asexuality. A desire-based definition has been raised as one among a few potential alternatives. But none of the main researchers currently follow a desire-based model. For that reason, I argue that an and/or attraction and desire model is the farthest that one can reasonably go on the basis of present evidence. This is shown in a detailed summation of current research recently provided by a Project Team member in another post which I've linked below. I'd consider changing my view if there's a shift in academic opinion to favour a desire-only definition, but until that happens, I will view sexual attraction as part of the definition of asexuality.
 

 

1) why did they start another thread when there is an active thread about the same topic that was only started a few days ago? (this is getting ridiculous)

 

2) you'd HAVE to change your view if you were in a different location, because it's only in English-speaking countries that sexuality is defined that way. Your entire argument is based on things you've read that only say what they do as a result of the language they were written in. English defines sexualities in a really bizarre way, but if you for example went to Germany you'd be automatically required to define sexuality differently because you're in an area and speaking a language that defines it differently. What I'm trying to say is that rather than your argument being based in any real exploration of actual sexuality, it comes from things people have written who only wrote what they did as a result of the language they speak. I could never base my opinions and beliefs around something as fickle as that, when if you just go to a different country the scholarly articles and academia etc will all say something completely different about the exact topic you're so vehemently standing behind right now.

 

But again, this is all pretty pointless. As AVEN has made perfectly clear with their new definitions thread they just started. They'd rather stick do defining homosexuality as "anything you want it to be depending on how you define sexual attraction", and heterosexuality as "anything you want it to be depending on how you define sexual attraction" and bisexuality as "anything you want it to be depending on how you define sexual attraction" and asexuality as "anything you want it to be depending on how you define sexual attraction". 

 

AVEN can continue doing that, it's cool - but as the largest asexual community in existence, AVEN is literally turning asexuality into one of the biggest jokes on the internet - Constantly mocked and ridiculed right across the board. The people here seem really comfortable with that though so meh, we'll just have to leave you all to it. 

 

And yes you're right, literally every single person who says they desire sex with others do have some sort of preference when it comes to who they desire sex with, regardless of whether they're saying they're ace or sexual. So by your definition of sexual attraction, it's pointless even including it in the definition of asexuality because no one who desires sex with others literally has no preference whatsoever as to who they choose to have sex with. Even if that's "must not be smelly" or "must not be deformed" or "I have to trust them", those are all still preferences. End of. And if someone literally does say "no I'll literally fuck ANYTHING that goes on two legs, I just don't care because all I want to do is get my genitals on someone".. that person is so vastly different from an asexual who has no desire to have sex with anyone, ever, as to render the asexual label utterly meaningless.

 

[Sally]

6 hours ago, Pan. said:

Asexuality - no desire for sexual interaction.

http://www.aven-info.de/asexualitaet/

THAT'S the definition we need on the Main Page.  

 

All the other stuff is just blather.  

[Pramana]

3 hours ago, Pan. said:

This will be the fourth time I've tried to comment over the past like hours. I've literally lost hundreds (probably thousands) of words to AVEN failing, and have waisted more time than I should on a topic I've already beaten to death over the past few years. I'm going to have to make this the last response and then bow out, because I'm way too busy with work to keep repeatedly losing posts as a result of the forums here failing. Continuing to discuss this issue just isn't worth the time I'm wasting.

This has been frustrating, especially given how interesting recent developments have been!

 

3 hours ago, Pan. said:

I also just want to say, as you keep saying that people here just don't understand sexual attraction or have talked about it too much and confused ourselves etc.. That's not the case in the case of people like me, Mysticus, Skulls, Sally, Circles and co. The issue is that no matter how you define it, there are people who say "no, that's not what sexual attraction is". There are people want to argue and say that "no, sexual attraction lust, which means asexuals are actually people who only desire sex for fun but not because they feel lust" There are people who say "no, sexual attraction is looking at sexy people and getting horny, asexuals just don't experience that.".. then there are people who say "no, sexual attraction is being able to find people 'hot' and 'sexy' - it's nothing to do with whether or not you want sex, it's how attractive you find people and the words you use to describe that.. Asexuals just don't find people 'hot' but they desire sex like anyone else, it's biological. 

If we're concerned about eduction, then we should work to disabuse people of those mistaken perceptions. Of course, if you try to define sexual attraction in terms of one or another of the dozens of ways in which people might experience it, you're going to have difficulty. All the examples of confusion that I've seen on AVEN have resulted from this misguided strategy. I've proposed a different approach, defining sexual attraction straightforwardly and in a way that gets at the overarching concept as: "Preferences for sexual partners based on gender and/or other characteristics". That seems about as clear as any concept you're going to have.

 

3 hours ago, Pan. said:

1) why did they start another thread when there is an active thread about the same topic that was only started a few days ago? (this is getting ridiculous)

My best guess is that they were getting tired of reading threads with us arguing about it.

 

3 hours ago, Pan. said:

2) you'd HAVE to change your view if you were in a different location, because it's only in English-speaking countries that sexuality is defined that way. Your entire argument is based on things you've read that only say what they do as a result of the language they were written in. English defines sexualities in a really bizarre way, but if you for example went to Germany you'd be automatically required to define sexuality differently because you're in an area and speaking a language that defines it differently. What I'm trying to say is that rather than your argument being based in any real exploration of actual sexuality, it comes from things people have written who only wrote what they did as a result of the language they speak. I could never base my opinions and beliefs around something as fickle as that, when if you just go to a different country the scholarly articles and academia etc will all say something completely different about the exact topic you're so vehemently standing behind right now.

That's not the way academics works. Researchers speak to each other across language barriers. And English is the most common language for scientific publications. The fact that the German version uses a desire-based definition doesn't mean that's what German psychologists would do if they write a paper on the topic (and there's a good chance that if they were to write a paper, that they would write it in English).

 

3 hours ago, Pan. said:

But again, this is all pretty pointless. As AVEN has made perfectly clear with their new definitions thread they just started. They'd rather stick do defining homosexuality as "anything you want it to be depending on how you define sexual attraction", and heterosexuality as "anything you want it to be depending on how you define sexual attraction" and bisexuality as "anything you want it to be depending on how you define sexual attraction" and asexuality as "anything you want it to be depending on how you define sexual attraction". 

 

AVEN can continue doing that, it's cool - but as the largest asexual community in existence, AVEN is literally turning asexuality into one of the biggest jokes on the internet - constantly mocked and ridiculed right across the board. The people here seem really comfortable with that though so meh, we'll just have to leave you all to it. 

Practically speaking, I suspect that cases of people who desire partnered sex but who never experience sexual attraction and who want to call themselves asexual will be too rare to have a significant impact on the overall picture of the community. That is probably even more so the case if we explain sexual attraction in the way I've suggested, which puts pressure on people who might think they don't experience sexual attraction to consider if, in fact, they actually do.

Realistically, the indications are that AVEN won't change the definition to a desire-only one unless there's a shift in what the science says on the matter. That is a reasonable position. We have a better chance of advocating an attraction and desire-based definition, as I have proposed.

My impression is that popular awareness of asexuality is improving, with more research and news stories being published. You're always going to have Internet trolls.
 

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

THAT'S the definition we need on the Main Page.  

 

All the other stuff is just blather.  

It doesn't look like that's going to happen, as the indications are that AVEN is going to follow the preponderance of scientific evidence on the matter. And the picture I get from responses to these threads and polls is that the membership is leaning towards either an attraction-based or an attraction/desire-based definition, rather than a desire-only definition.

[NoLongerActive1234]

@Pan. I imagine that for some people their different preferences only has to do with who they can get romantic feelings for, who they would be in a relationship with.The attractions does not intertwine with the desire to have partnered sex like it usually does. In their wish for partnered sex, for the sake of sex, if they have someone that they are romantically attracted to that they are in a relationship with then why would they look elsewhere for sex? It would not be logical. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have a preference for having sex with their partner. 

[Pramana]

23 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

@Pan. I imagine that for some people their different preferences only has to do with who they can get romantic feelings for, who they would be in a relationship with.The attractions does not intertwine with the desire to have partnered sex like it usually does. In their wish for partnered sex, for the sake of sex, if they have someone that they are romantically attracted to that they are in a relationship with then why would they look elsewhere for sex? It would not be logical. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have a preference for having sex with their partner. 

Right, factors other than preferences can still direct sexual behaviour. So in your example, the person in a romantic relationship might choose to have sex with her/his partner rather than someone else because she/he doesn't want to be perceived as cheating by that partner.

[binary suns]

8 hours ago, Pan. said:

Yes I agree. In the same way homosexuality can be defined as "desiring sex with people of the same gender" but also "only desiring sex with people of the opposite gender" it can mean both things.

wait so hold on so I think that you do support the idea that a person can generally desire sex with anyone and not feel some kind of "attraction to a person specifically" right? but that such a person is not necessarily a pansexual person right? because while that kind of person is not exactly the same as this next person, it is related. imagine a person who - when it comes to desire specifically - desires sexual contact with other humans. in general. not preference of their desire - just like all those people who claim they love sex but are asexual. but instead - they are Only attracted to men - so because of this attraction - sex with women is a poor replacement for sex with men. it is good sex don't get them wrong, and they will gladly have it. but because of the elements of their attraction to men, they would be unsatisfied in a ongoing relationship with a woman. and they would be unsatisfied if they were unable to be around men, such as in an all-women's prison. in this way, then "Desire for sex" would not be the end-all definition of sexuality - because there is more to sexuality than simply desire for sex. 

 

this is what I would prefer to support - the idea that no one definition is a complete, standard, definition, universally - because that implies that there is only one layer to sexuality and nothing else. There is desire. there is attraction. there is sexual activity itself. there is a person identifying themselves subjectively. there is the enjoyment of sexual activity instead of distaste for it. there is preferences of gender, which might or might not have anything to do with any of the above or following. there is aesthetic appeal. there is the affection and comfort of cuddling. there is flirting and the expectation - but not yet reward - of something happening. there is romance. there is the thrill of being a family.

 

there is so much depth to the relationships, emotions, and activities that form because of "human sexuality" that saying "a sexual is one of these things and that is that, nothing further" is ... downright creepy, really. offensive. so because of that - any "definition" is not "true definition" because overall the experience that people care about - it is not a literal, isolated experience which has one true facet and nothing else. it is a subjective experience by its own existence in its reality - the definitions we use can only represent the subjective experience, at best, but without an essay they are incomplete. without a novel. without a text book. without a library. the definition is not everything. and is not the end of the line. and is not universal. 

 

 

I do support the idea that an asexual is a person who does not desire sex! because that specific factor is the most meaningful out of all of them, which would help people identify what they should do (and say) with their life, regarding sex. there is a reason I often say when talking to newbies "hold on forget labels for a second and note - if you want sex, then feel unashamed to pursue it. if you don't want sex, then feel unashamed to avoid it! it is ok either way" - because I am encouraging to identify what they desire, and accept it for that. in this way I am hopeful that they can embrace and accept their sexuality if they are sexual - and their asexuality if they are ace - and their being grey if they are grey. rather than weave deceptions that fool themselves and mock the visibility efforts of the community. (and also I am showing them acceptance of their desires, and hopefully therefor encouraging their own self-acceptance thereof)

 

 

for the most part I agree with a lot of the things that you and many other members push. but then I see people try to denounce attraction. or denounce the very real fact that most sexual people highly value romance as part of their sexuality. or the very real fact that most sexuals do not go around with the desire to fuck people and then once that is had as soon as possible they don't feel anything else for that person. and they didn't experience anything else either in the process of wanting a fuck. never ever ever. I have even seen Myst one time say that sexual attraction doesn't even exist! I think they were really mad at the time tho so I overlook that comment and just feel kinda "xD sorry friend" about it. 

 

 

 

 

So this is why I want to push the idea that there is Not one true definition, and there is Not only desire, and there Is attraction that is also relevant. This is what I mean by "human sexuality is not something which can be exclusively defined. "  

 

And so, inspired by the reminder of the idea of classification, I would like to support the idea that there is not a "true definition" but instead a "best practice for classification" - basically, that there is more to sexuality than desire. much much more - in fact it is possible for people to lack desire and still experience sexuality. but generally speaking, classifying - not defining, classifying (if it is needed at this time, I am not sure how to identify how those two words are so importantly different any more than I have in this post) - classifying based on desire is the most common and most meaningful method of noting if a person is asexual or not. or gay or straight or bi. IMO a definition is good for promoting classification - but a definition is very limited in singlehandedly promoting understanding of a whole field or topic. 

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Pan. said:

And yes, sexual people desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. Sexual attraction can be something that helps them determine the direction of their sexual desire (whether at men, women, both, etc).

 

Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever.. so whether or not they experience sexual attraction really just doesn't matter. Sexual attraction is meaningless when it comes to asexuality.

I like how you say that sexual people desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. I like how you say that sexual attraction can be something too. I think you underestimate the importance of attraction to many people however. and I support the idea that asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. I think it's a shaming tactic to include "ever" because "one time in their life" should not make a person go "wow I lied my whole life" that is unhealthy. technically speaking yes that is a strong sign they might not be asexual - but I highly support the value of reliable signals in classifying a person's orientation. so one time being different is inconclusive for classification purposes. perhaps significant for casting plausible doubt and inquiring and upon it, and considering exploring it. but multiple times are needed. a person is not a person with autism if they one time ever flapped their arms a lot. that's so laughably (insultingly) inconclusive!

 

and I highly disagree with how you say that it doesn't really matter if they experience sexual attraction. because - it does really matter to humans how they feel elated when looking at their love interest. It isn't irrelevant. So that statement is very harmful, as well - just as harmful as the statements people say that "desiring sex is ok for me as an asexual if I do not feel special elation and infatuation for a love interest" both things are often important for most people, but neither is universally important for all people. 

 

 

 

when it comes down to it - yes, whether or not a person desires sexual contact with a partner is the best determinant for them to decide whether or not they should pursue a sexual relationship with a partner. Because of this, it makes the most sense to say that "an asexual is a person who lacks desire for sexual contact with a partner" 

 

 

 

but - this does not make attraction irrelevant. And this does not completely define sexuality, because it is a very narrow look at what sexuality is (it adequately defines it - but not completely). it is not the end of the line. it is not universal. it is not everything that matters. Saying otherwise to any of these previous statements in this specific paragraph, I would find to be problematic for the health of visibility, education, and community. and for the health of asexuality, sexuality, gay/bi/straight, romanticism, and all the other orientations too. because while desire is a very important determining factor for classification, it is not the only aspect of human sexuality. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ps.

it may be noted that I mentioned how romance is often the same as sexuality. this is because that trend is very true. I do not mean to imply that an romantic asexual is not actually asexual - because for an asexual, romance often becomes very important to identify. I just mean to note that many sexual people find romance to be an important aspect of their sexuality. 

[binary suns]

32 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

@Pan. I imagine that for some people their different preferences only has to do with who they can get romantic feelings for, who they would be in a relationship with.The attractions does not intertwine with the desire to have partnered sex like it usually does. In their wish for partnered sex, for the sake of sex, if they have someone that they are romantically attracted to that they are in a relationship with then why would they look elsewhere for sex? It would not be logical. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have a preference for having sex with their partner. 

er, I want to clarify the language of this. because if whether or not a person feels sexual attraction, romantic attraction, or otherwise - if they desire sex they desire sex. this is the point @Pan. makes, I believe. 

 

but - if a person desires sex in general, but says "oh I feel a lot of attraction for this gender, so therefore I am this orientation and not pansexual" then in this way, attraction is the determining factor for them. 

 

but do note that, in regards to the power of language, it can be said that because they desire sex with a certain gender because they prefer a certain gender due to attraction. however this is actually awkward, not revealing - because in the same way, if a romantic asexual wants to have sex for their partner, it is desiring sex with their partner. so it is more meaningful to understand that desire sex specifically means experiencing a direct desire for sex, not a derivative wanting based off of other reasonings. And furthermore, this is a strong counterargument to why desire is too risky to be the end-all determinant - language is not as precise as many avenites seem to assume. trust me that it is possible to find a loophole in anything, and foster that loophole until you're denouncing what every other human embraces - and then yelling at them for invalidating you! so this is why I push to suggest that people do not look to a definition to end all debates. it will never happen. in fact, definitions aggravate a debate really. 

[Guest]

.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Pramana said:

That's not the way academics works. Researchers speak to each other across language barriers. And English is the most common language for scientific publications. The fact that the German version uses a desire-based definition doesn't mean that's what German psychologists would do if they write a paper on the topic (and there's a good chance that if they were to write a paper, that they would write it in English).

Science as a whole does not agree that attraction informs orientation, nor that asexuality is to be defined by it. That opinion of yours is factually wrong, end of story.

 

BTW, last time I check German Wikipedia (yes not a scientific publication) it did not use "sexual attraction" on its page about sexual orientations in regard to any other orientation, nor in the main text. "Attraction" was only mentioned on that page in regards to one phenomenon that is "argued to be" an orientation: asexuality. It has no impact on how hetero-, homo- or bisexuality are defined.

 

Defining asexuality by "attraction" thus makes it fundamentally different from homo-, hetero-, and bi/pansexuality. If that's what you want, sure go ahead. But then stop pretending asexuality were a valid orientation, or that you guys have any place at all in LGBT+. That's for non-hetero orientations (and trans* folk, for historical reasons), not for whatever "asexuality" may be (it clearly isn't an orientation, because it's obviously defined completely structurally differently from them by AVEN and the Tumblrinas).

 

 

(P.S.... why has the dark purple default color turned almost lavender-ish since yesterday? )

[Pramana]

13 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Science as a whole does not agree that attraction informs orientation, nor that asexuality is to be defined by it. That opinion of yours is factually wrong, end of story.

This has never been my opinion. My understanding is that sexual attraction is the principal conceptual tool through which sexual orientations are modelled in the psychological literature, but not that it's the only relevant factor for determining orientation. I'm also not claiming that there is one hundred percent consensus, but it is the general trend.

I'm sceptical of attempts to put so much weight on German popular sources which use definitions that translate to sexual desire in English, without knowing more about the German linguistic/social/cultural context, and how German academics would view the issue when speaking to English academics. For example, if they use sexual desire to explain orientation, then how would they explain heterosexual men in prison who desire sex with other men because no women are available? These considerations lead me to suspect that something is being lost in translation. And at the very least, as evidence in support of a desire-only definition, it is no where near sufficient to counter all the scientific evidence that has been cited so far.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Pramana said:

For example, if they use sexual desire to explain orientation, then how would they explain heterosexual men in prison who desire sex with other men because no women are available?

Simple. Desire for partnered sex, in general, overriding their pattern of preference, because partner choice isn't free in the situation they're currently in. That isn't something only Germans could agree on... it's near universally agreed right on here, on AVEN, despite its bewildering amount of support for attraction-based definitions.

 

It would be far more interesting to find out how attractionists explain that while hetero guys often have sex with men in prison, ace men would be a lot less likely to. Attraction-models should be completely at a loss to make sense of that, while desire-models can explain it very neatly indeed.

[Pramana]

Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

Simple. Desire for partnered sex, in general, overriding their pattern of preference, because partner choice isn't free in the situation they're currently in. That isn't something only Germans could agree on... it's near universally agreed right on here, on AVEN, despite the bewildering amount of support for attraction-based definitions.

 

It would be far more interesting to find out how attractionists explain that while hetero guys often have sex with men in prison, while ace men would be less likely to. Attraction-models should be completely at a loss to make sense of that, while desire-models can explain it very neatly indeed.

Alright, but if they have a pattern of preference, then they must experience sexual attraction, or at least a concept in German which is broadly analogous to sexual attraction. You need a two stage – rather than a single stage – model to explain this type of situation.

If you never experience sexual attraction, it's likely you also never experience sexual desire, as the two are closely interrelated. True, sexual people often experience desire in the absence of attraction, but there are very few if any sexual people who never experience attraction, so one would expect that an asexual person who never experiences attraction would also never experience desire. Essentially, it seems like the capacities to experience sexual attraction and sexual desire are codependent. One must have both in place to experience either, and only if both are in place can one then experience desire in the absence of attraction.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Alright, but if they have a pattern of preference, then they must experience sexual attraction, or at least a concept in German which is broadly analogous to sexual attraction. You need a two stage – rather than a single stage – model to explain this type of situation.

If you never experience sexual attraction, it's likely you also never experience sexual desire, as the two are closely interrelated. True, sexual people often experience desire in the absence of attraction, but there are very few if any sexual people who never experience attraction, so one would expect that an asexual person who never experiences attraction would also never experience desire. Essentially, it seems like the capacities to experience sexual attraction and sexual desire are codependent. One must have both in place to experience either, and only if both are in place can one then experience desire in the absence of attraction.

That only makes sense if you consider "partner preference" to directly translate into "sexual attraction". Just because men desire to have sex with women doesn't necessitate calling this desire "(hetero)sexual attraction". Desire and preference are 100% fully sufficient for explaining the phenomenon. Attraction is an unneccessary additional term added to these two aspects, which leads to lots and lots of problems.

 

And if you do directly translate it to this so... well, then let me tell you, the majority (possibly the overwhelming majority) of asexuals DO experience what you call "sexual attraction", and that doesn't make them any less asexual.

 

Because otherwise, if somebody is even remotely less against compromising sexually with a man than with a woman (or vice versa), then under the attraction model, they cannot logically be considered a valid asexual. Since that probably includes most homo- and heteroromantic aces, all of those cannot logically be considered TrueAces^TM. You must be aro (or panro) to really be ace. Is that what you folks want? (Serious question.) 

[Pramana]

26 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

That only makes sense if you consider "partner preference" to directly translate into "sexual attraction". Just because men desire to have sex with women doesn't necessitate calling this desire "(hetero)sexual attraction". Desire and preference are 100% fully sufficient for explaining the phenomenon. Attraction is an unneccessary additional term added to these two aspects, which leads to lots and lots of problems.

 

And if you do directly translate it to this so... well, then let me tell you, the majority (possibly the overwhelming majority) of asexuals DO experience what you call "sexual attraction", and that doesn't make them any less asexual.

 

Because otherwise, if somebody is even remotely less against compromising sexually with a man than with a woman (or vice versa), then under the attraction model, they cannot logically be considered a valid asexual. Since that probably includes most homo- and heteroromantic aces, all of those cannot logically be considered TrueAces^TM. You must be aro (or panro) to really be ace. Is that what you folks want? (Serious question.) 

My understanding, reflected in the definition I propose, is that attraction can be explained in terms of partner preferences (at a basic, general level). So if you agree that there are preferences which determine orientation, then I would say you agree in essence with the two stage desire/attraction model.

As for your second case, I'm not that hung up on the concept of "true asexual". Maybe many asexuals are slightly gray-area in the way you've described, although by generally accepted usage it's not significant enough for them to even identify as gray-asexual. I'm not sure that's the only or even the best explanation, but it seems like a reasonable one.

[Skycaptain]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone, disagreeing with each other, and debating the topic is fine, but can we all keep personal sniping down, thanks. 

Skycaptain moderator musi-rants