The Sexuality Activation Patterns

[AW10]

6 minutes ago, Mauru said:

There may be translation issues here again, but to me that says I consciously choose not to be sexual. As in, if I wanted to be sexual I could, but I deliberately make a choice not to, and that's just not true.

 

Thanks for clarifying the external bit. Self-suggestion and self-intention sound better.

You have now pointed out the issue I have with presenting something to others.

 

If I try to explain something on the way it naturally comes to me, no one understands. If I try to simplify something, I wreck the theory and everyone misunderstands.

 

It is just that human decides to engage in social experience when the social pattern is met, and since asexuals do not have want for sex, they cannot meet the sexual themed social pattern, but they can meet personal themed social pattern.

 

5 minutes ago, Laurann said:

I don't think either of those are good wording.

Imagine a person that doesn't want to be asexual, but still definitely is.

They don't have the intention to be asexual. They don't suggest it to themselves. They don't want it.

They just are asexual, whether they want to be or not, and nothing and nobody will be able to change that fact.

 

I would call it brain chemistry or just psychology to be honest. Asexuals (this is a generalization) never want to 'activate their sexuality' and have sex, because they are not wired to do so. They (usually) have the right body parts to engage in sex. They are (usually) physically able to be aroused. But they do not have the desire to engage in sex.

The root cause of this has not been scientifically studied (or at least not enough), but my best guess is that this is because of innate brain chemistry.

Asexuals are different from sexuals from the time they were born. Different, not less, just different.

 

I would just go for 'brain' here. It's a more general and less culturally loaded term than those you named.

A Chinese person will have very different ideas about what your 'spirit' is, or your 'instinct' or any of those. Definitions, conceptions, associations and connotations of words as vague as those differ significantly from culture to culture, which is another reason why I think we had so many misunderstandings. You're from Croatia and I'm from the Netherlands. The concepts and words that are floating around in our heads are very different and in some areas probably incompatible.

I see what you mean, but word-choice is whole another story. I intend to be specific with my word-choice, and it is not really the brain, it is those four human aspects I keep repeating:

• you may want sex because you are emotionally involved with a person
• you may want sex because you have intellectually concluded that it will be good to have children
• you may want sex because you want to spiritually connect with the individual
• you may want sex because your instincts are telling you to do so

By the way, the irony of this whole thing that I am still a virgin sexual who is also a bi-sexually oriented. Well, I am talking about wanting sex, and I repeatedly choose theories over sex.

[Rynn]

9 hours ago, AW10 said:

• you may want sex because you are emotionally involved with a person
• you may want sex because you have intellectually concluded that it will be good to have children
• you may want sex because you want to spiritually connect with the individual
• you may want sex because your instincts are telling you to do so

What are you basing this on? I don't think there would be any research that would use terms this vague and this easily misinterpreted. What does 'spiritually connect' even mean? What if you're an atheist that doesn't believe in anything spiritual? 

 

Why are you only including these four reasons when you could name hundreds upon hundreds of other reasons? For example:

• You may want sex because you want your partner to be happy
• You may have sex because society tells you that is the normal thing to do
• You may want sex because you want to know what it's like
• You may want sex because it physically feels good
• You may want sex to increase your own self esteem
• You may want sex because it relaxes you and you feel stressed out at the moment
• You may want sex because the other person is ridiculously hot and even though you're not in the mood you don't want to miss this opportunity
• You may want sex because the other person is famous and you want to brag about it to your friends
• You may want sex because you like dominating and controlling women
• You may want sex because you don't want to be called a virgin anymore
• You may want sex because you just broke up with your partner and you know it's not likely to happen anytime soon after this
• You may want sex because you just had a fight with a partner and you want to make it up to them

 

And for asexuals, none of the four reasons you named will work. They won't desire sex because of emotional involvement or a spiritual connection. Their instincts are definitely not telling them to have sex. And I don't think 'wanting children' even qualifies as actually desiring sex. You want children, sex is just a tool to get that, you don't necessarily want the sex itself.

[Rynn]

8 hours ago, AW10 said:

It is just that human decides to engage in social experience when the social pattern is met, and since asexuals do not have want for sex, they cannot meet the sexual themed social pattern, but they can meet personal themed social pattern.

I don't know what this means, but I'm going to repeat that an asexual will never desire sex. That is the definition (that I use) of asexuality. (Others may use the attraction based definition, but attraction is defined by desire, so it's basically the same thing, just less confusing)

 

Regardless of social circumstance, regardless of personal intent or suggestion, an asexual will never desire sex. They may still have it for some of the other reasons I named in my post above, but that is not because of their own desires. Those desires don't exist and they can't exist, not even if the asexual wants them to exist. Personal intent cannot change that fact. Period.

[AW10]

56 minutes ago, Laurann said:

What are you basing this on? I don't think there would be any research that would use terms this vague and this easily misinterpreted. What does 'spiritually connect' even mean? What if you're an atheist that doesn't believe in anything spiritual? 

 

Why are you only including these four reasons when you could name hundreds upon hundreds of other reasons? For example:

• You may want sex because you want your partner to be happy
• You may have sex because society tells you that is the normal thing to do
• You may want sex because you want to know what it's like
• You may want sex because it physically feels good
• You may want sex to increase your own self esteem
• You may want sex because it relaxes you and you feel stressed out at the moment
• You may want sex because the other person is ridiculously hot and even though you're not in the mood you don't want to miss this opportunity
• You may want sex because the other person is famous and you want to brag about it to your friends
• You may want sex because you like dominating and controlling women
• You may want sex because you don't want to be called a virgin anymore
• You may want sex because you just broke up with your partner and you know it's not likely to happen anytime soon after this
• You may want sex because you just had a fight with a partner and you want to make it up to them

 

And for asexuals, none of the four reasons you named will work. They won't desire sex because of emotional involvement or a spiritual connection. Their instincts are definitely not telling them to have sex. And I don't think 'wanting children' even qualifies as actually desiring sex. You want children, sex is just a tool to get that, you don't necessarily want the sex itself.

I am trying to only use root elements when defining something, so I can cover every scenario you can come up with. Underlying aspect of your examples in order listed are: emotional, intellectual, emotional, instinctual, emotional, instinctual, intellectual, emotional, emotional, emotional, intellectual, emotional. It is pretty much it, some of them are even combination of various aspects, but I picked one. As for spiritual, you can want sex to feel your beings coming together, but that depends on spiritual views, just like other examples depends on emotional, intellectual or instinctual views/preferences. Do you understand now, underlying principle? You see waves, I see the currents that cause them.

 

48 minutes ago, Laurann said:

I don't know what this means, but I'm going to repeat that an asexual will never desire sex. That is the definition (that I use) of asexuality. (Others may use the attraction based definition, but attraction is defined by desire, so it's basically the same thing, just less confusing)

 

Regardless of social circumstance, regardless of personal intent or suggestion, an asexual will never desire sex. They may still have it for some of the other reasons I named in my post above, but that is not because of their own desires. Those desires don't exist and they can't exist, not even if the asexual wants them to exist. Personal intent cannot change that fact. Period.

We are talking about same thing here, the patterns I am proposing are applicable to all humans, meaning that the patterns are reason behind why asexuals do not desire sex and sexuals do desire sex. I am simply proposing underlying principles of (not)desiring sex, asexuals have no sexual suggestion/intention coming from self thus cannot meet the pattern, sexuals do and thus can meet the pattern. So, when you combine asexual and sexual into something new, you will get that no one is sexual at start, but not everyone are capable of becoming sexual. That is the summary of my theory, hope you understand now?

[AW10]

1 hour ago, Laurann said:

an asexual will never desire sex

That is what I believe now when I have removed Vin DiCarlo's influence on me and my theory. The reason for confusion is that I was having Vin DiCarlo's ideas in my sub-conscious and my ideas in my conscious, thus had contradicting ideas in my mind. Now I have finally fused those ideas into one new idea and corrected my theory.

[Rynn]

 

23 minutes ago, AW10 said:

I am trying to only use root elements when defining something, so I can cover every scenario you can come up with.

Why these four? What data are you basing your theory on? I can make up a different set of 'root causes' right now.

• societal pressures (to be considered normal or cool, to have children, to see what the fuss is all about)
• emotional (for intimacy)
• physical (need for release, because it physically feels good)
• power dynamics (to dominate)

These researchers made up a different set. They based it on data. Theirs sound a lot more credible, reality-based and comprehensive to me.

https://news.utexas.edu/2007/07/31/why-do-people-have-sex-researchers-explore-237-reasons

 

2 minutes ago, AW10 said:

That is what I believe now when I have removed Vin DiCarlo's influence on me and my theory. The reason for confusion is that I was having Vin DiCarlo's ideas in my sub-conscious and my ideas in my conscious, thus had contradicting ideas in my mind. Now I have finally fused those ideas into one new idea and corrected my theory.

That's good 

[AW10]

1 minute ago, Laurann said:

 

Why these four? What data are you basing your theory on? I can make up a different set of 'root causes' right now.

• societal pressures (to be considered normal or cool, to have children, to see what the fuss is all about)
• emotional (for intimacy)
• physical (need for release, because it physically feels good)
• power dynamics (to dominate)

These researchers made up a different set. They based it on data. Theirs sound a lot more credible, reality-based and comprehensive to me.

https://news.utexas.edu/2007/07/31/why-do-people-have-sex-researchers-explore-237-reasons

 

There is only one root, and that root must fit all; what you are proposing is just a manifestation of root, not the root itself. I have a blessing or a curse to be able to see the root itself, but I still have to be sure that I am actually seeing the root, not manifestation of the root. I believe that I am seeing the root, so in order you have listed them, your root causes are "manifestation of emotional wing intellectual root", "manifestation of emotional root", "manifestation of instinctual root", "manifestation of intellectual wing emotional root".

[AW10]

21 minutes ago, Laurann said:

These researchers made up a different set. They based it on data. Theirs sound a lot more credible, reality-based and comprehensive to me.

https://news.utexas.edu/2007/07/31/why-do-people-have-sex-researchers-explore-237-reasons

As for the article you are proposing, I can still come up with the same thing I have come up with your root causes, so I am still closer to the root, if not on the root itself:

• [manifestation of instinctual root] Physical reasons such as to reduce stress ("It seemed like good exercise"), feel pleasure ("It's exciting"), improve or expand experiences ("I was curious about sex"), and the physical desirability of their partner ("The person was a good dancer").
• [manifestation of intellectual wing emotional root] Goal-based reasons, including utilitarian or practical considerations ("I wanted to have a baby"), social status ("I wanted to be popular") and revenge ("I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease").
• [manifestation of emotional root] Emotional reasons such as love and commitment ("I wanted to feel connected") and expression ("I wanted to say 'thank you'").
• [manifestation of emotional wing intellectual root] Insecurity-based reasons, including self-esteem ("I wanted the attention"), a feeling of duty or pressure ("My partner kept insisting") and to guard a mate ("I wanted to keep my partner from straying").

[Rynn]

10 minutes ago, AW10 said:

There is only one root, and that root must fit all; what you are proposing is just a manifestation of root, not the root itself. I have a blessing or a curse to be able to see the root itself, but I still have to be sure that I am actually seeing the root, not manifestation of the root. I believe that I am seeing the root, so in order you have listed them, your root causes are "manifestation of emotional wing intellectual root", "manifestation of emotional root", "manifestation of instinctual root", "manifestation of intellectual wing emotional root".

You didn't answer my question. What data or research are you basing this on? Why did you pick these four? Why do you think you know better than these researchers who are specialized in this and who have specifically studied this? Why do you think you can look into people's minds and see what their underlying reasons are? 

You can't just say "Oh well, I'm special. I see things clearer than everyone else does." and then be done with it. There's no proof that your theory corresponds to reality, and I don't think it does.

[Rynn]

4 minutes ago, AW10 said:

I can still come up with the same thing I have come up with your root causes,

I'm sure you can fit everything into your theory, but so could Sigmund Freud. Look up verification theory and falsification theory by Karl Popper(philosophy of science, every single university student has to study this in their first year, it's useful, I promise.) . The fact that no matter what people say, you will always find a way to squeeze it into your theory, is a sign of weakness within your theory. That means it is not scientific, and should not be taken seriously, just as Sigmund Freud's interpretations of dreams or theories on female hysteria should not be taken seriously.

They may sound correct to a limited number of people, but that doesn't mean they are.

[AW10]

28 minutes ago, Laurann said:

You didn't answer my question. What data or research are you basing this on? Why did you pick these four? Why do you think you know better than these researchers who are specialized in this and who have specifically studied this? Why do you think you can look into people's minds and see what their underlying reasons are? 

You can't just say "Oh well, I'm special. I see things clearer than everyone else does." and then be done with it. There's no proof that your theory corresponds to reality, and I don't think it does.

Well, as you have said in your quote below, I am just like Sigmund Freud you are referring to. I am not making scientific theories you do prefer, but useful theories you do not prefer. I am not telling that I know better or that I am special, I am just different, I am just telling that I am not taking the conventional methods to things, which may result in theories being incorrect, but they can still be useful, which is goal of my theories. Do you feel the difference between "8 degrees Celsius" and "7 degrees Celsius"? Only one of those two numbers can be scientifically proven correct, yet it bares no effect on you since your experience is pretty much the same. So it is with my theories, science gives too much information, I give just the right amount of information for my theory to be useful. Anyway, if you want to understand the people like me, you can look at this video based on research. It is hard to understand the video if you are new to MBTI, but please try.

 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Laurann said:

I'm sure you can fit everything into your theory, but so could Sigmund Freud. Look up verification theory and falsification theory by Karl Popper(philosophy of science, every single university student has to study this in their first year, it's useful, I promise.) . The fact that no matter what people say, you will always find a way to squeeze it into your theory, is a sign of weakness within your theory. That means it is not scientific, and should not be taken seriously, just as Sigmund Freud's interpretations of dreams or theories on female hysteria should not be taken seriously.

They may sound correct to a limited number of people, but that doesn't mean they are.

 

[Rynn]

9 hours ago, AW10 said:

Well, as you have said in your quote below, I am just like Sigmund Freud you are referring to. I am not making scientific theories you do prefer, but useful theories you do not prefer.

No no no, look, if you aren't willing to base your theory in data, experiments, or just reality in general, then there are no practical applications for it. Then you are just making up theories in your head that only work for the world as it is in your head, since it doesn't correspond to reality. You're free to make stuff up, but don't expect everyone else to live in your imagination with you.

9 hours ago, AW10 said:

I am just telling that I am not taking the conventional methods to things, which may result in theories being incorrect, but they can still be useful,

No they're not useful. They can't provide any meaningful information if it's not correct information. That is not useful, it is misleading, it is counterproductive. It leads to more ignorance, not less. A lot of Sigmund Freud's work has been found to be plain wrong, sexist and actively harmful to his patients. You don't want to be like him, really, you don't.

 

Spoiler

 

Yeah, I know MBTI. My sister obsesses over that stuff and wants me to obsess over it too. We're both INFJ's according to the test.

I have my problems with MBTI (results of these tests have been proven inconsistent and there's no real research or scientific value behind it, but it's sure colorful.), but I know enough about it.

My dad and my brother are INTJ too according to the test. They live in reality though, and they're science fanatics.

The fact that an online test told you you are an INTJ doesn't really make me understand you or your theory much better.

 

I'm sorry, I can't take this seriously. The guy who made the youtube video you linked to describes his channel like this: A channel about Jungian Typology Theory, made by a self-taught hobbyist (and not an expert in any way).

And here are some links on why I don't think MBTI is as good as it's made out to be:

Spoiler

Got a bunch of articles through: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1p2cki/how_scientifically_valid_is_the_myers_briggs/http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=hss_pubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dmyers%2Bbriggs%2Bpsychometrics%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C5#search="myers briggs psychometrics"

Read the first two comments (by actual experts) and that's basically enough. There's just not enough evidence to support MBTI.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543063004467

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886996000335

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_4

 

 

 

But honestly, I'm kind of done discussing this. For me, no reality = no deal.

 

You just can't expect people to throw away their (for the most part) working sexuality labels that match their experiences in favor of something there is no proof for and that doesn't instinctively make sense (at least up to now, not to anyone but you). If your 'sexual activation patterns' are not meant to be based in facts, or to even be correct, and they don't match people's lived experiences, then why bother? Why bother?

I'm not even a fan of most labels, and I don't even think they have been defined in a clear and useful way, and I don't think all of them have been classified under the correct umbrella terms, but they are still better than what you are proposing.

 

I'm sorry, I just... I've made my points and I'm done.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Yeah, none of this is ever going to be used in real life, it's just your musings. I mean that's cool if that's what you want but it has no practical application I can see at all.

[AW10]

Finally figured out why patterns does not apply to asexuals! It is because of innate component of those patterns that I have been missing all this time. That component is now added to the original post, making theory complete since it finally explains what exactly causes asexuals to not pursue sex.

[TheGrumpyBear]

The entire theory falls apart simply. Some people have no, as you put it, innate personal/sexual suggestion. I would go so far as to say that most on this site do not. I am saying this by assuming that innate can be translated to internal. Breaking it down, that phrase seems to mean that something within our overall psyche gives us sexual wants. This is false. Some of us do not have that internal trigger.

[AW10]

4 minutes ago, TheGrumpyBear said:

The entire theory falls apart simply. Some people have no, as you put it, innate personal/sexual suggestion. I would go so far as to say that most on this site do not. I am saying this by assuming that innate can be translated to internal. Breaking it down, that phrase seems to mean that something within our overall psyche gives us sexual wants. This is false. Some of us do not have that internal trigger.

Well, that is what I am saying with updated post, asexual person "does not have that internal trigger" meaning "has no innate sexual suggestion/intention". For example, there exist "Ph-Ch sexuals" and "Ph-Ch asexuals"; both having same "Ph-Ch pattern", but "Ph-Ch asexuals" do not have that internal trigger, rendering the pattern useless. In other words, those patterns are like mental counterpart of genitals that asexuals have no use of.

[TheGrumpyBear]

2 minutes ago, AW10 said:

Well, that is what I am saying with updated post, asexual person "does not have that internal trigger" meaning "has no innate sexual suggestion/intention". For example, there exist "Ph-Ch sexuals" and "Ph-Ch asexuals"; both having same "Ph-Ch pattern", but "Ph-Ch asexuals" do not have that internal trigger, rendering the pattern useless. In other words, those patterns are like mental counterpart of genitals that asexuals have no use of.

Ah. I must have been reading it a bit wrong. From that angle, that is actually a fair assessment. It seems to present sexuality as an inaccessible mental framework. It may be there, but it is incompatible with the mind and body that surrounds it. Like a sound card driver trying to be used on a video card. It is there, it could do its assigned job on the proper hardware, but there is no way to make it work on the hardware presented.

[AW10]

2 minutes ago, TheGrumpyBear said:

Ah. I must have been reading it a bit wrong. From that angle, that is actually a fair assessment. It seems to present sexuality as an inaccessible mental framework. It may be there, but it is incompatible with the mind and body that surrounds it. Like a sound card driver trying to be used on a video card. It is there, it could do its assigned job on the proper hardware, but there is no way to make it work on the hardware presented.

Yes! Yes! We finally reached an agreement!  

[TheGrumpyBear]

As long as it is understood that it isn't a defect or isn't something that can be/should be changed. I am not in favor of the school of thought that asexuals can be made into sexuals. Some, maybe. Most definately not all.

[LizModel]

On 3/21/2017 at 2:59 AM, Laurann said:

need to be replaced in the first place

he did not say that it has to be replaced. 

On 3/21/2017 at 2:59 AM, Laurann said:

where you are trying to go with this

he is having  (just) a suggestion

[AW10]

38 minutes ago, CandyBuddhist said:

he did not say that it has to be replaced. 

he is having  (just) a suggestion

I actually said many things during the process of bringing the theory from initial to final version.

 

EDIT: I have took down many of the things I have said, but the fact I said them still stays.

[Rynn]

5 hours ago, CandyBuddhist said:

he did not say that it has to be replaced.

Yeah he did. I don't know if he edited that out, but yeah he did.

[Memento1]

I think the trouble is this theory is trying to help sexuals explain what activates their sexuality, and does nothing at all for asexuals except remind them they're not like the sexuals.  I think this could be more helpful for those struggling to define their sexuality, for those who have it.

 

My second problem is that I am somewhat anti-definition (even sexual / asexual).  I don't think people actually fall into neat little organized boxes like this.  I believe a label is helpful if it makes someone feel more accepted / understood, but it isn't actually a fixed definition of what you are.  I appreciate you are trying to help people feel more accepted / understood, and maybe for some people it does, but obviously for the majority here it is having the opposite effect.

 

For the same reason, I don't like that someone said "an asexual will never desire sex," as they're defining the label so it makes them feel more secure / accepted but doesn't necessarily match reality.  10 years ago, I was sex-repulsed, sex avoidant, and convinced I would never want sex.  Now, under very precise circumstances, I do want it.  By that definition, I wasn't a "true" asexual 10 years ago because "never" didn't actually play out.  It just helps reduce the pressure people feel to be sexual, making them feel better.  And it DID make me feel better, but now that definition no longer does.  That's the danger of confusing a label with a definition.  A definition is an attempt to "fix" reality in one immovable spot, when not all reality is immovable.  For instance we had very clear definitions of "male" and "female" which people are just beginning to understand is a vast oversimplification of a very complex thing.

 

Attempting to simplify reality into fixed, immovable definitions can make a lot of people feel better, but beware it can have the opposite effect as well.

[AW10]

21 minutes ago, Memento1 said:

I think the trouble is this theory is trying to help sexuals explain what activates their sexuality, and does nothing at all for asexuals except remind them they're not like the sexuals.  I think this could be more helpful for those struggling to define their sexuality, for those who have it.

 

My second problem is that I am somewhat anti-label (even sexual / asexual).  I don't think people actually fall into neat little organized boxes like this.  I believe a label is helpful if it makes someone feel more accepted / understood, but it isn't actually a fixed definition of what you are.  I appreciate you are trying to help people feel more accepted / understood, and maybe for some people it does, but obviously for the majority here it is having the opposite affect.

This is essentially what I have in mind. Thank you for verbalizing it!

[Memento1]

28 minutes ago, AW10 said:

This is essentially what I have in mind. Thank you for verbalizing it!

I feel like we're talking past each other.  Your theory is just offering up different definitions, not moving past the inherent weaknesses of definitions in the first place.  What you're saying is "your definitions don't make me feel better, my definition does," but does not actually give that definition more weight.  Maybe just clarify these are labels people can use if it makes them feel better, but not an attempt to fix people into categories.

[AW10]

1 hour ago, Memento1 said:

I feel like we're talking past each other.  Your theory is just offering up different definitions, not moving past the inherent weaknesses of definitions in the first place.  What you're saying is "your definitions don't make me feel better, my definition does," but does not actually give that definition more weight.  Maybe just clarify these are labels people can use if it makes them feel better, but not an attempt to fix people into categories.

I see what you mean now, so you are "presenting the pros and cons of the labels in general" and I am "offering alternative (a)sexual labels for people who are inclined to using labels, in case that current (a)sexual labels do not give them contentment". Regarding your "presenting the pros and cons of the labels in general", I see what you are saying, but if properly defined labels are properly used, they can have a great practical application. Following two articles, alongside this thread, is my best attempt at giving people properly defined labels and teach them how to properly use them: "The Practical Definition of Personality" and "The Practical Definition of Sexuality".