Jump to content

A statement about the "definition discussion"


timewarp

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Meow. said:

attraction is an emotional experience felt where one person is drawn to another person, item, or activity.

 

attraction is considered sexual if it leads to or correlates with sexual arousal or desire for sexual or erotic activity.

 

Perhaps "desire for sexual activity with a partner" or something idk. 

 

I think those are useful distinctions. The addition of "with a partner" would be what distinguishes asexuals from sexuals. There's a way in which asexuals might find someone sexually attractive because they have sexual fantasies/masturbate about that person, but with no desire to have actual real life sex with that person. And asexuals may be sexually attracted to fictional characters in an analogous way.

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

asexuals might find someone sexually attractive because they have sexual fantasies/masturbate about that person, but with no desire to have actual real life sex with that person. And asexuals may be sexually attracted to fictional characters in an analogous way.

I'm not sure if I agree completely. Back to the definition I quoted originally: "Sexual attraction is an emotional response that sexual people often feel that results in a desire for sexual contact with the person that the attraction is felt towards." Seems to me that finding "someone sexually attractive because they have sexual fantasies/masturbate about that person" indicates that they are experiencing the type of emotional response that results in some level of the relevant type of desire (even, as you clarified, they may not actually want to have sex with the person), so it's hard for me to say that the case you're referring to is not sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Diamond Ace of Hearts
6 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

To clarify on this point, when researchers in fields such as psychology and sexology do these studies where they ask self-identified asexuals how strongly they agree or disagree with various statements, they are looking for strong correlations between asexual people and particular statements that will then aid them in creating predictive measures of asexuality. As in, they want to create measures that have a high rate of accuracy for correctly identifying people who already know they are asexual. If they achieve this, that means they have extremely valuable data on what it means to be asexual, which allows them to create an accurate description/definition of what asexuality is. So, TL;DR? There is research being conducted right now to reach an objective and accurate definition/description of asexuality. It just takes years to do all this properly, unfortunately.

does that not mean that in the end it comes down to self-identification anyway? The data is gathered from self-identified asexuals, the definition is based off that data, so it's just decided by majority vote, essentially. So in 50 years we'd be having to tell people "sorry, you aren't asexual because you don't experience things in the same way as the people who participated in the study, whose only qualification for being studied was their own assertion that they qualified and who may or may not have been representative of all asexuals at that time, let alone ever."

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to try and define us or to do it that way, just that maybe it would still be possible to be too authoritarian, even with a firmer definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
5 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I'm not sure if I agree completely. Back to the definition I quoted originally: "Sexual attraction is an emotional response that sexual people often feel that results in a desire for sexual contact with the person that the attraction is felt towards." Seems to me that finding "someone sexually attractive because they have sexual fantasies/masturbate about that person" indicates that they are experiencing the type of emotional response that results in some level of the relevant type of desire (even, as you clarified, they may not actually want to have sex with the person), so it's hard for me to say that the case you're referring to is not sexual attraction.

I am in agreement with this! the way most people express what it is that sexual attraction is, and/or what sexual desire is, it's very difficult to differentiate how a person is any different from a fantasy! I mean sure it is a fantasy. but it is attraction and/or desire nonetheless!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I'm not sure if I agree completely. Back to the definition I quoted originally: "Sexual attraction is an emotional response that sexual people often feel that results in a desire for sexual contact with the person that the attraction is felt towards." Seems to me that finding "someone sexually attractive because they have sexual fantasies/masturbate about that person" indicates that they are experiencing the type of emotional response that results in some level of the relevant type of desire (even, as you clarified, they may not actually want to have sex with the person), so it's hard for me to say that the case you're referring to is not sexual attraction.

 

16 minutes ago, Meow. said:

I am in agreement with this! the way most people express what it is that sexual attraction is, and/or what sexual desire is, it's very difficult to differentiate how a person is any different from a fantasy! I mean sure it is a fantasy. but it is attraction and/or desire nonetheless! the fantasy surely could make a difference - but there is no point in trying to say they are not the same root emotion. 

You both make good points. The way sexual attraction is being used in the definition assumes the attraction connects to desire for partnered sex, which must be the case for it to be an accurate definition of asexuality.

 

Then there's sexual attraction which connects only to sexual desire for solo sexual activities.

I'm not sure what's the best approach to take semantically to make this distinction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
2 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'm not sure what's the best approach to [make] this distinction.

awkwardly, subjectivity xD

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

It's not an opinion, it's a hard fact. Look at the opening post again, giving crystal clear evidence for it. There is no such thing as a scientific agreement that attraction is the one and only thing informing orientation, nor that asexuality is informed by lack of attraction.

 

Frankly, admods disagreeing with me on this are unqualified for their position, because they put their ideological agenda over scientific findings. What I say is factually correct and 100% scientifically sound; disagreeing with me on this is factually wrong and blatantly unscientific. Fullstop, end of story.

 

Admods in disagreement should be chased out of office for being ideologically compromised, tendentious, and in rejection of science. That's not the type of person you should tolerate making decisions that impact what is, for better or worse, the leading face of education about asexuality. You don't want Young Earthers to be the leading face in teaching origin of species, either, now do you?

 

The Admod Team is meant to maintain civility not fact check people you don't agree with. As much as I am critical of them, saying they are unqualified because they won't punish people who you don't agree with is going way too far. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Diamond Ace of Hearts said:

does that not mean that in the end it comes down to self-identification anyway? The data is gathered from self-identified asexuals, the definition is based off that data, so it's just decided by majority vote, essentially. So in 50 years we'd be having to tell people "sorry, you aren't asexual because you don't experience things in the same way as the people who participated in the study, whose only qualification for being studied was their own assertion that they qualified and who may or may not have been representative of all asexuals at that time, let alone ever."

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to try and define us or to do it that way, just that maybe it would still be possible to be too authoritarian, even with a firmer definition.

I think in the big-picture view, we need to look at asexuality historically/genealogically. In other words, the asexuality community only exists because people started deciding to self-identify as asexual. Therefore a genuine understanding of asexuality has to take into account WHY the first in the contemporary asexuality community decided to identify as asexual.

 

Now that asexuality has become big enough to seem trendy or popular in some circles, it becomes necessary to consider from a different point of view WHY a person self-identifying as asexual is self-identifying. In other words, I believe that an ill-informed or bad-faith self-identification is not valid. But I wouldn't say that directly to a person unless I think their purported self-identity is deceptive or destructive (gaslighting, trolling, etc.).

 

Without making this post too long, what I'm getting at is that I think the self-identification definition of asexuality is valid and compatible with the attraction definition, as long as the self-identification is in good faith and well-enough informed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Diamond Ace of Hearts said:

does that not mean that in the end it comes down to self-identification anyway? The data is gathered from self-identified asexuals, the definition is based off that data, so it's just decided by majority vote, essentially. So in 50 years we'd be having to tell people "sorry, you aren't asexual because you don't experience things in the same way as the people who participated in the study, whose only qualification for being studied was their own assertion that they qualified and who may or may not have been representative of all asexuals at that time, let alone ever."

 

I'm not saying it's wrong to try and define us or to do it that way, just that maybe it would still be possible to be too authoritarian, even with a firmer definition.

Anyone who researches human sexuality understands the importance of self-identification, and they would not make claims that an individual is not asexual on the basis of a questionnaire or interview. What they will be able to do is describe what asexuality looks like for the majority of asexuals. It does ultimately come down to self-identification, but it's also to get a good, clear picture of how the average asexual thinks/feels/behaves in reference to sexuality. The extreme outliers would likely just be borderline cases, grey asexual types, and people who may be mistaken about their asexuality (I am not making any judgments on that point. I was mistaken about being homosexual, so, it happens). The goal is not to make a litmus test, it's just to understand it better as a phenomenon. If the predictive value of a measure is really good, it could feasibly one day help people who treat desire disorders to screen for the probability of asexuality, and avoid unnecessary treatment. This is not about absolutes.

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

 

The Admod Team is meant to maintain civility not fact check people you don't agree with. As much as I am critical of them, saying they are unqualified because they won't punish people who you don't agree with is going way too far. 

 

Okay cool. I'll make a thread to test it. I'm pretty sure how it will turn out. Yes, I will make reports in regard to it. For science, not out of conviction.

 

 

The thread in question.

 

 

EDIT:

Unfortunately, some people are meanie-pants and made the experiment fail right off the bat. QQ

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

It's not an opinion, it's a hard fact. Look at the opening post again, giving crystal clear evidence for it. There is no such thing as a scientific agreement that attraction is the one and only thing informing orientation, nor that asexuality is informed by lack of attraction.

 

Frankly, admods disagreeing with me on this are unqualified for their position, because they put their ideological agenda over scientific findings. What I say is factually correct and 100% scienticifally sound; disagreeing with me on this is factually wrong and blatantly unscientific. Fullstop, end of story.

 

Admods in disagreement should be chased out of office for being ideologically compromised, tendentious, and in rejection of science. That's not the type of person you should tolerate making decisions that impact what is, for better or worse, the leading face of education about asexuality. You don't want Young Earthers to be the leading face in teaching origin of species, either, now do you?

Oh, okay, so you're saying attraction just isn't the be-all end-all of orientation. That I can see as less controversial than the idea that desire is the defining factor for orientation. 

 

3 hours ago, Pramana said:

I'm not sure what it would mean to experience sexual attraction without experiencing sexual desire. From what I've read, sexual attraction is described as overlying and directing sexual desire in some instances (although sexual desire can operate in its absence). But I should stress that I'm not prepared to say that sexual attraction can't happen in the absence of sexual desire, only that I think it's unlikely.

My understanding is that even though pansexuals lack gender preferences, most still have preferences based on other personal characteristics.

People can experience elements of sexual attraction without desire, such as enjoying a person's physical appearance including things that would for the most only appreciated in the context of sexual attraction. I think this can count as attraction even if desire is entirely absent. If you want to have sex I don't think it's possible to completely lack preferences. Otherwise you would be just as willing to have sex with anybody on earth who offered it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
49 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I believe that an ill-informed or bad-faith self-identification is not valid. But I wouldn't say that directly to a person unless I think their purported self-identity is deceptive or destructive (gaslighting, trolling, etc.).

I wholeheartedly endorse this!

 

I do not find any issue with anyone thinking anything about anyone else. but I fail to see the point in aven regulars rampaging around the forums overpowering newbies with their advanced skills at AVEN-speak (and aven-drama)  it is about just as rude as someone stopping a foreign exchange student halfway through their sentence because you want to correct their english! and then you just go around looking for other foreign exchange students, blaming them for their awkward dialect of english, because all these foreigners are so tiring with their lack of effort to learn the country's language!

 

I assume it is just impatience? rage? I wish it would stop. 

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

Okay cool. I'll make a thread to test it. I'm pretty sure how it will turn out. Yes, I will make reports in regard to it. For science, not out of conviction.

 

 

The thread in question.

 

what fanciful forum this would be if being wrong was actually punishable 

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

what fanciful forum this would be if being wrong was actually punishable 

As I already told you in another thread: Clear and firm correction of clearly wrong facts =/= punishment.

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

As I already told you in another thread: Clear and firm correction of clearly wrong facts =/= punishment.

 

That's not the admod team's job though.They are not the forum's fact checkers and expecting them to act as such is expecting way too much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
17 minutes ago, m4rble said:

 

People can experience elements of sexual attraction without desire, such as enjoying a person's physical appearance including things that would for the most only appreciated in the context of sexual attraction. I think this can count as attraction even if desire is entirely absent. If you want to have sex I don't think it's possible to completely lack preferences. Otherwise you would be just as willing to have sex with anybody on earth who offered it. 

yup exactly. it is risky for me to point this out, but it is a real phenomena that occurs - humans wide and large hugely overestimate how much labeling things certain ways lock them into certain ideas. this is not to say that we should not label things! a label is a critical tool in clarity, communication, and abstracting unnecessary details to avoid taxingof our brain's processing. 

 

But it is common for someone to say, in an example applicable to the discussion, that "oh I like this person sexually, and also feel all these things for them. therefor, these things are sexual attraction!" or vice-versa, "oh sexual attraction is what happens when I notice someone special compared to others. so when I am hungry for lots of sex with my partner, I am an ace!" 

 

 

which is why I find it important to note that attraction is one thing, and that we subjectively name it sexual because we associate as such. and why I generally am attracted to the desire definition instead, despite it's own fallacies xD

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

 

That's not the admod team's job though.They are not the forum's fact checkers and expecting them to act as such is expecting way too much. 

On a forum that is, going by its own name, about education, when said conterfactual statements are made about the topic the forum wants to educate about...

 

No, I think that expectation is pretty damn fair.

 

(But again, that may well be a difference in that pesky little thing - core values. Obviously, my own differ dramatically from the BoD's, and at least a sizeable part of the admods'.)

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

On a forum that is, going by its own name, about education, when said conterfactual statements are made about the topic the forum wants to educate about...

 

No, I think that expectation is pretty damn fair.

 

(But again, that may well be a difference in that pesky little thing - core values. Obviously, my own differ dramatically from the BoD's, and at least a sizeable part of the admods'.)

8)

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
16 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

On a forum that is, going by its own name, about education, when said conterfactual statements are made about the topic the forum wants to educate about...

and I refer to Bogaert and  Van Houdenhove et al. again, in how they notice a troublesome lack of facts regarding asexuality, and a significant level of subjectivity. 

 

 

the best facts we got are survey results, and the mods sure showed us with this post how on top of that they are! you should be pleased with that, no? this is what you are requesting. that an education forum endorses factual things - and they are, surveys. the best we got. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Meow. @Tofer

I'm been thinking about sexual attraction (whether it's to real people or fictional characters) which only results in solo sexual desire (fantasy, masturbation). The better interpretation might be to say that it is sexual attraction attached to a desire for partnered sex, it's just that the person doesn't go through with it in reality, either because they simply can't (in the case of fictional characters) or because the desire is too weak or is too conflicted (such as if the person is repulsed by the idea of actual sex). That would suggest a gray-asexual identity. I identify as gray-asexual on account of being sex-repulsed in this respect. I also did a cursory forum search and found some support for this idea. But of course there's probably going to be some variance in terms of how people would like to identify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, m4rble said:

People can experience elements of sexual attraction without desire, such as enjoying a person's physical appearance including things that would for the most only appreciated in the context of sexual attraction. I think this can count as attraction even if desire is entirely absent.

This is exactly why it took me a while to really consider if I was asexual, and also why it took me a while to join AVEN.

 

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

@Meow. @Tofer

I'm been thinking about sexual attraction (whether it's to real people or fictional characters) which only results in solo sexual desire (fantasy, masturbation). The better interpretation might be to say that it is sexual attraction attached to a desire for partnered sex, it's just that the person doesn't go through with it in reality, either because they simply can't (in the case of fictional characters) or because the desire is too weak or is too conflicted (such as if the person is repulsed by the idea of actual sex). That would suggest a gray-asexual identity. I identify as gray-asexual on account of being sex-repulsed in this respect. I also did a cursory forum search and found some support for this idea. But of course there's probably going to be some variance in terms of how people would like to identify.

I am not so sure about that description, it seems to focused and specific. it will miss too much ground. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is utterly ridiculous, how many definitions threads do we need going at once? Why did a mod start one and a PT member start a separate one a couple of days later while the first was still (very) active? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, m4rble said:

People can experience elements of sexual attraction without desire, such as enjoying a person's physical appearance including things that would for the most only appreciated in the context of sexual attraction. I think this can count as attraction even if desire is entirely absent.

I enjoy a person's physical appearance (including that of my partner) not as attraction.  I experience it in the same way that I experience the appearance of a Gaugin painting.   That has nothing to do with anything sexual, or even physical.  I simply want to observe him/it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Meow. said:

I am not so sure about that description, it seems to focused and specific. it will miss too much ground. 

I conducted some more inquiries, in the spirit of the science theme on this thread. I found a recent journal article on this very topic. This is from the paper's conclusion:
 

While there are a number of differences between asexual and sexual groups in terms of patterns of masturbation and sexual fantasy, as well as in contents of sexual fantasy, the similarity between the groups on several of these measures is striking. For example, nearly half of asexual women and three quarters of asexual men reported both experiencing sexual fantasy and masturbating, despite reporting a lack of sexual attraction to other people and identifying as asexual. Further, there was significant overlap in the sexual fantasies experienced by participants, regardless of their asexual or sexual status. Sexual fantasies have long been thought to reveal an individual’s innermost desires. However, the current data suggest that if this is true, individuals do not necessarily act on these desires. An asexual individual may not experience sexual attraction, but may nonetheless engage in sexual fantasy, perhaps to facilitate physiological sexual arousal and masturbation. The sexual fantasies may not be reflections of innate sexual wants or desires.

 

Sexual Fantasy and Masturbation Among Asexual Individuals: An In-Depth Exploration, Morag A. Yule, Lori A. Brotto, Boris B. Gorzalka, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 2017.

The way these researchers are using "sexual attraction" is such that it only refers to fantasies which one connects to desired real life actions. They also stress that there is insufficient data on the issue to reach anything more than speculative, tentative suggestions regarding the proper interpretation. Therefore, for now I would suggest that we take sexual attraction to refer only to attraction connected to desire for real life partnered sex, subject to change pending future research.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

I do not consider sexual attraction to necessarily be connected to sexual desire. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
4 hours ago, Sally said:

I enjoy a person's physical appearance (including that of my partner) not as attraction.  I experience it in the same way that I experience the appearance of a Gaugin painting.   That has nothing to do with anything sexual, or even physical.  I simply want to observe him/it.  

would you say that one element of a brown horse is its brown coat? this does not mean that all things brown are horses! nor that all horses are brown! but to say that brownness is not reflective of horseness in any way, would be denying a very real correlation. 

 

in this way, aesthetic attraction is an aspect of sexual attraction. this does not mean that all people who are attracted to a person's looks is necessarily sexual in orientation! nor that all people who are sexual find aesthetic appreciation relevant! however, to say that aesthetic attraction is not reflective of sexuality in any way, would be denying a very real correlation. 

 

 

 a sexual person will often associate aesthetic appeal with sexual attraction. this is one thing that is often confusing when trying to explain asexuality to someone who is unaware of it. 

 

I trust that it is very true that you personally experience appreciation for a person's physical appearance in a way that has nothing to do with sexual desire! but for the purpose of the discussion at hand I would like to point out that appreciating physical appearance is something which occurs for all people regardless of orientation, and which often people associatate with attraction, if not observe a direct connection with attraction and/or desire. 

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

a sexual person will often associate aesthetic appeal with sexual attraction. this is one thing that is often confusing when trying to explain asexuality to someone who is unaware of it. 

Yup, same with romantic attraction. That's all lumped into being "attracted to" someone. Most of the time the sexual element is only implied, because it's broadly understood. If we use "desire" instead of "attraction" we don't need to worry about that specification. Attraction always has a target; desire doesn't.

 

In academic studies, concepts and terminology are defined and explained thoroughly. In everyday interaction they're not. Studies on asexuality using "attraction" doesn't make it the most practical definition for everyday awareness and visibility. The intent of studies is to create academic dialogue. The intent of AVEN is to educate the general population. The general population is better educated by a desire definition. So this, in my opinion, is the direction the terminology should be moving in: desire-based.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe the Stoic
11 hours ago, Pan. said:

This is utterly ridiculous, how many definitions threads do we need going at once? Why did a mod start one and a PT member start a separate one a couple of days later while the first was still (very) active? :huh:

AVENites have proved time and time again that they cannot settle on a definition for asexuality.  I suppose it fits that they cannot settle on a thread for definitions of asexuality either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...