A statement about the "definition discussion"

[Pramana]

48 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You're the one who claims to take the scientific view, not me. So you need to be held to scientific rigor far more than I need to.

 

Besides, Gretchen has just shown that by a source you yourself quoted, desire for sex is at the very least a far more strongly supported measurement of asexuality than "sexual attraction". Cold, hard evidence is hitting you right in the face.

Again, how come the researchers who developed the measurement tool still use an attraction-based model? 

And I would humbly suggest that we all need to be held to the same scientific rigour.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Pramana said:

And I would humbly suggest that we all need to be held to the same scientific rigour.

No. The same logical rigor, yes, but not the same scientific rigor. Science isn't everything.

 

 

1 minute ago, Pramana said:

Again, how come the researchers who developed the measurement tool still use an attraction-based model? 

Maybe that's what they said they use. The results clearly speak a different language - they demonstrably, evidently put much more emphasis on desire for sex than on whatever "sexual attraction" is.

[Pramana]

5 minutes ago, Meow. said:

@Pramana the patterns of discussion Myst is using right now with you mimic pretty spookily the patterns they used right before they labeled me not-worth-discussing with, then to continue to pull me along until I flipped out about it. You are being baited. I strongly advise you cease speaking with them at all now, because they are leaving aven and are not afraid of warnings. so they can troll you all they want and you are the only one at any risk. 

 

the mods certainly didn't step in to do anything to help me then. they won't do anything now either. let it go, walk away, and be the better person than I was. 

 

if anything, I'll get a warn for "vigilante modding" lol because when someone is being abused, speaking up about it is a no-no. someone being taken advantage of must turn the other cheek and submit to the abuse. 

Thanks for the concern.

I like to stick to the evidence and the arguments. I'm not a fan of personal attacks.

[binary suns]

@Pramana well if you choose to keep at it... good luck. I've blocked them at this point - it was exciting to finally be able to see some of their thoughts, but it's clear they still have me on ignore anymore. it's such a shame because I thought they were quite an important perspective to have on this site. but they seemed to think that despite the fact that I agreed with 95% of what they were saying, that the fact I cared to try to convince them of one oversite they are still making, that I was a complete logical fool and not worth speaking to.

[Pramana]

4 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

No. The same logical rigor, yes, but not the same scientific rigor. Science isn't everything.

 

 

Maybe that's what they said they use. The results clearly speak a different language - they demonstrably, evidently put much more emphasis on desire for sex than on whatever "sexual attraction" is.

I agree it's evidence that we should add desire to the definition, to make it more clear and because it is obviously a useful predictor of asexuality. But I can't see going to a desire-only definition.

[Pramana]

5 minutes ago, Meow. said:

@Pramana well if you choose to keep at it... good luck. I've blocked them at this point - it was exciting to finally be able to see some of their thoughts, but it's clear they still have me on ignore anymore. it's such a shame because I thought they were quite an important perspective to have on this site. but they seemed to think that despite the fact that I agreed with 95% of what they were saying, that the fact I cared to try to convince them of one oversite they are still making, that I was a complete logical fool and not worth speaking to.

I think we've reached the agree to disagree point in this debate. At least the differences between these viewpoints are now more clear.

[Snao Cone]

A lot of discussions on AVEN come down to differences in personality more so than differences in opinion.

[m4rble]

3 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

If someone is pissing against your leg, and offers you a cookie along with continuing to piss against your leg, it's reasonable to accept the cookie, instead of saying "dude, stop pissing against my leg!"...? Thank God I'm not reasonable - reason is for weaklings.

I'm adding this to my signature. 

[Lost247365]

I want to say two thing.  First and foremost:

On 3/21/2017 at 2:38 PM, euco said:

I, for one, am super relieved that the default definition does not appear at the top of the forums webpage any longer.

 

I think it was removed around November 20 during the server/system upgrade, but I'm not certain.

 

For many of us who found the definition problematic in so many ways, it is so nice to not have to read it anymore.

I want to state how much I agree with this!!!

Secondly,

If the definition is (as described by the OP) a work in process with research supporting both the desire and attraction definition then why is there so much opposition to an "and/or" definition from AVEN.  Why risk disenfranchising anyone when we can just make everyone happy by adding "and/or sexual desire for others" to the definition.

[Pramana]

The Ethics of AVEN’s Self-Identification Principle

(I decided to post this in both active threads)

I thought I would do some social theory research on the ethics of AVEN’s self-identification principle. From the discussion so far, it appears that vocal proponents of an attraction-based or attraction/desire-based definition are more likely to support it, while vocal proponents of a desire-only definition often oppose it. This appears to be due to the fact that often desire-only proponents are motivated in part by a concern that the asexuality community is too broad. In particular, there is concern that if (gray)asexuality is viewed as a transient label favoured by teenagers or as a label that intersects too closely with mental health issues and atypical personalities, then asexuality will not be taken seriously by the general public. Thus, some desire-only proponents would like to be able to tell certain people that they are not asexual, and perceive that a desire-only definition will make it easier for them to do so.

 

I argue that the motivation described above is not an ethically sound basis for excluding people from the asexual community. In my view, asexuality should be understood in terms of experiences which separate people from one or more aspects of mainstream sexual culture. The focus should be on relevant experiences rather than on whether or not people fit a specific formal definition. That is why I favour the more inclusive attraction and/or desire definition, which I see as more of an umbrella term designed to give people a general idea of the types of experiences which are relevant to asexuality. I see this not as a problem but as one of the innovative features of the asexual community. In that regard, I follow sociologist Anna Kurowicka:

 

“According to the official AVEN guidelines, “making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their asexuality, is strongly discouraged” (AVEN 2013). In the Frequently Asked Questions section of the website, one can read that “if you find that the asexual label best describes you, you may choose to identify as asexual” (AVEN 2013; emphasis mine). Both quotations strongly imply that asexual identity is a matter of personal choice and self-identification rather than any external characteristics or internal psychological features. This emphasis on choice and agency is a clear break from the traditional essentialist vision of identity, which assumed a certain set of qualities one had to have in order to “join the club.” As Carrigan notes, “One of the most curious features of the asexual community is that it has simultaneously facilitated the articulation of individual difference and the solidification of a communal identity” (2011, 470). Every member can have their own personal definition of what being asexual means to them, but they can also seek support and understanding from others based on their shared experience. The fact that their sexual behaviors may vary greatly becomes much less relevant than their conscious decision to identify with the “asexual” label."

 

Anna Kurowicka, The Queer Identity for the Twenty-first Century? An Exploration of Asexuality, pages 203-216 in The Personal of the Political: Transgeneration Dialogues in Contemporary European Feminisms, edited by Elzbieta H. Oleksy, Aleksandra M. Rozalska, and Marek M. Wojtasek, (Untied Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars publishing, 2015).

[Guest]

It's extremely frustrating that we have two very active threads both started around the same time covering the EXACT same discussion going on at once right now. Can't they be merged? T_T

 

13 hours ago, Lost247365 said:

If the definition is (as described by the OP) a work in process with research supporting both the desire and attraction definition then why is there so much opposition to an "and/or" definition from AVEN.  Why risk disenfranchising anyone when we can just make everyone happy by adding "and/or sexual desire for others" to the definition.

I don't support and/or because it covers so much of the population depending on how you define sexual attraction. It's pretty much saying you can be asexual and desire partnered sex for any reason depending on the definition of sexual attraction you personally choose to apply to yourself, OR you can be asexual and have no desire to connect sexually with others DESPITE feeling whatever sort of attractions many asexuals do in fact experience. That's rendered the definition so meaningless by that point that it's pretty much pointless identifying as asexual at all.

 

It's like saying a gay person is someone who desires partnered sex with people of the same gender, but can also exclusively desire sex with people of a different gender and still be gay. It's exactly the same thing. That would render the term "gay" meaningless because it can mean such different things that it suddenly applies to a vast number of heterosexual people as well as applying to homosexuals.

 

Asexuality is even more a minority than homosexuality, so it's pretty much just taking advantage of something only a minority of people experience, and taking advantage of those people themselves because there are too few of them to really make a dent in this issue, in favour of total exclusivity for anyone who wants to be asexual.

 

So apparently only 1% of people are asexual, yet certain people want to push for a definition that can include as much of the population, and as many varied sexual behaviours and preferences, as possible.. People want a definition that is malleable enough that literally anyone who wants to be asexual can be depending on how they interpret the definition or what they want to pick and choose applies to them.. like a definition buffet..  ..Yet asexuality is apparently quite rare.

 

That's what baffles me most when I see people trying to push for an and/or definition.

 

(yes this is pasted from the other thread but the exact same answer applied here as it's pretty much the same discussion happening in two separate places)

 

Edit: typed on my phone as usual so excuse the typos T_T

[Anthracite_Impreza]

It's got bugger all to do with distancing ourselves from mentally ill and atypical people (I fit both categories with depression, anxiety and ASD FYI), it's to do with having a definition that makes sense! How can you have a label that combines hypersexuals who'll do anyone cos they're horny and people who don't want sex ever?!

[shockkkk]

Quote

Maybe that's what they said they use. The results clearly speak a different language - they demonstrably, evidently put much more emphasis on desire for sex than on whatever "sexual attraction" is.

So much this.

 

This will come across as harsh, but if I'm to be honest, it seems that a lot of the support for an attraction based model has more to do with political motivations than actual truthfulness. Over the years there have been sentiments that we can't have a desire or behavioural based definition because people will invalidate asexuals by claiming its a lifestyle choice. Another is that since other orientations are defined by attraction (which imo is a rather spurious claim to begin with), we must define asexuality with attraction as well. Most realize the ambiguity or outright absurdity an attraction definition brings, and their remedy for this has been to define sexual attraction in a way that is more or less synonymous with desire - as seen in the definition provided in the AVEN FAQ.  

 

This doesn't even touch on the pragmatic value of such labels. I mean if I were on some place like OKcupid searching for a asexual relationship, and met up with some girl who ended up saying "oh I don't feel sexual attraction, but I want to have sex every day", I (and I'm guessing most) would feel completely duped. What's the point in even having an asexual label if it encompasses a ton of people with sexual preferences that are would more compatible with other heterosexuals (or whatever non asexual orientation you wish to put here).  

[Sally]

Other orientations are defined by attraction only because they are all sexual.   Thus, they're defined by who they're attracted to.   That's got nothing to do with the attractionist definition of asexuality.  

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Sally said:

Other orientations are defined by attraction only because they are all sexual.   Thus, they're defined by who they're attracted to.  

And even there, that's not universally agreed on, nor is there a solid definition of what "sexual attraction" is.

 

I don't see a point in defining any orientation by "attraction". Doing so just leads to nonsense with no real-life applicability.

[nanogretchen4]

In the LGBT community most people have just been assuming that everyone has sexual desires for people they are attracted to, which is why the word "attraction" never caused widespread confusion until asexuality entered the picture.

[Sally]

8 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I don't see a point in defining any orientation by "attraction". Doing so just leads to nonsense with no real-life applicability.

True.  Sexuals would likely just say "I want to have sex with women", etc.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, shockkkk said:

This will come across as harsh, but if I'm to be honest, it seems that a lot of the support for an attraction based model has more to do with political motivations than actual truthfulness.

I couldn't agree more. The fact that the Anglo-American LGBT+ treats "sexual attraction" as Insistent Terminology has a lot to do with why AVEN makes the through and through political choice to stick with that "definition". AVEN's values are driven by furthering a political ideology, not by a goal of spreading untendentious information.

 

Newsflash; Just because LGBT+ does something doesn't make it correct. They also take the - completely idiotic - stance that "partner preference" were a bad word to describe orientations. Clearly it is not; it is spot on. If someone doesn't have a preference for same-sex sex partners, then that means they are obviously not gay. And if LGBT+ disputes that obvious statement, it means that LGBT+ doesn't understand sexual orientations any better than AVEN does.

 

It's time someone does what's neccessary and logical... and if that means doing what's not PC - well, toughies. There are far more important things at stake than PCness.

[Pramana]

21 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I couldn't agree more. The fact that the Anglo-American LGBT+ treats "sexual attraction" as Insistent Terminology has a lot to do with why AVEN makes the through and through political choice to stick with that "definition". AVEN's values are driven by furthering a political ideology, not by a goal of spreading untendentious information.

 

Newsflash; Just because LGBT+ does something doesn't make it correct. They also take the - completely idiotic - stance that "partner preference" were a bad word to describe orientations. Clearly it is not; it is spot on. If someone doesn't have a preference for same-sex sex partners, then that means they are obviously not gay. And if LGBT+ disputes that obvious statement, it means that LGBT+ doesn't understand sexual orientations any better than AVEN does.

 

It's time someone does what's neccessary and logical... and if that means doing what's not PC - well, toughies. There are far more important things at stake than PCness.

I'd argue that the political utility of using an attraction-based model as one way of looking at asexuality is a good reason for keeping it in the definition. I also argue for including the desire-based model for people who find it more intuitive. But why give up our ability to talk about asexuality in a way that's politically advantageous, in a way that appeals to how members of the general public have been conditioned to think about sexual orientations? If we're concerned about asexuality being taken seriously, surely this will only help our case.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'd argue that the political utility of using an attraction-based model as one way of looking at asexuality is a good reason for keeping it in the definition. I also argue for including the desire-based model for people who find it more intuitive. But why give up our ability to talk about asexuality in a way that's politically advantageous, in a way that appeals to how members of the general public have been conditioned to think about sexual orientations? If we're concerned about asexuality being taken seriously, surely this will only help our case.

So, what's politically advantageous should impact what gets taught in education.

 

Serious question: Do you support teaching Creationism alongside evolution in biology class, as a theory of equal value (i.e., optimal biology curriculum: "species were created by God 6000 years ago and/or came to exist through natural selection over the span of millions of years")? If your answer is no, what is your logical basis for such a decision? "No" is obviously the intolerant answer, and alienates a good number of people on a political basis.

[Pramana]

10 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

So, what's politically advantageous should impact what gets taught in education.

 

Serious question: Do you support teaching Creationism alongside evolution in biology class, as a theory of equal value (i.e., optimal biology curriculum: "species were created by God 6000 years ago and/or came to exist through natural selection over the span of millions of years")? If your answer is no, what is your logical basis for such a decision? "No" is obviously the intolerant answer, and alienates a good number of people on a political basis.

This is another false analogy. Evolution is widely accepted by American science; so is behaviorist psychology. Therefore, by your own analogy, we should be teaching behaviorist psychology.

My own leanings, in fact, are towards structural functionalism and communicative action theory, but I can't say with any reasonable degree of certainty that behaviorist psychology is wrong. At the moment, they're both viable competing models. Therefore, it's legitimate and pragmatic for us to use both, so let's do so. The compromise solution I've proposed reflects the fact that reasonable people can disagree about these underlying philosophical issues.

[Guest]

That is in no way related to what I have said. It's not even a strawman, it's just a ridiculous lie.

 

It's irrelevant how "widely accepted" it is, because it is obviously tolerant/inclusive and politically useful to teach Creationism in biology class. And those are, without the shadow of a doubt, criteria you have directly brought forth in support for the attraction based model. So, if "wide acceptance" is the only thing left, all that remains from your argumentation is appeal to tradition and/or authority. That is not in any way logically sound.

 

It's not a false anaolgy, it's pointing out the glaring flaws in your argumentation; you simply make very little sense, and aren't ready to honestly address the shortcomings of what you say. The longer this goes on, the more your opinion is safe to dismiss as logically irrelevant, as it more and more seems to lack integrity.

[Pramana]

10 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

That is in no way related to what I have said. It's not even a strawman, it's just a ridiculous lie.

 

It's irrelevant how "widely accepted" it is, because it is obviously tolerant/inclusive and politically useful to teach Creationism in biology class. And those are, without the shadow of a doubt, criteria you have directly brought forth in support for the attraction based model. So, if "wide acceptance" is the only thing left, all that remains from your argumentation is appeal to tradition and/or authority. That is not in any way logically sound.

 

It's not a false anaolgy, it's pointing out the glaring flaws in your argumentation; you simply make very little sense, and aren't ready to honestly address the shortcomings of what you say. The longer this goes on, the more your opinion is safe to dismiss as logically irrelevant, as it more and more seems to lack integrity.

Again, still a false analogy. I'm talking about including people who would be included according to a commonly accepted branch of science (behaviorist psychology). In this example, you're the one who's rejecting that we teach a major scientific theory, because you don't agree with it for personal reasons.

[Guest]

It's pointless arguing with you, you stubbornly lack even the least bit of willingness to address the problems in your argumentation, and shift and weasel the moment someone brings them up.

 

You are neither honest nor logical enough for me to further bother with your opinion, as you clearly cannot back it up in discourse among reasonable people.

[Pramana]

2 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

It's pointless arguing with you, you stubbornly lack even the least bit of willingness to address the problems in your argumentation, and shift and weasel the moment someone brings them up.

 

You are neither honest nor logical enough for me to further bother with your opinion, as you clearly cannot back it up in discourse among reasonable people.

As I wrote in the other main active thread on this topic, I think we can respectfully agree to disagree.

Realistically, the indications are that AVEN is not going to adopt a definition which isn't supported by current science and which would exclude a portion of those who currently identify as asexual (sex-favourable asexuals, and at least some gray-asexuals and demisexuals), and that AVEN is ethically committed to the self-identification principle.

It's hard to really get a sense of AVEN popular opinion, but if the status quo is actually as bad as some people say it is, then why aren't more people coming forward to oppose it? Furthermore, in terms of expressed opinion, the official statements released on the matter appear to have received a fair amount of support, and the last time I checked the recent poll on the matter shows only about 25% support for the desire-only definition.

Therefore, I don't think there's much point in arguing this matter further, unless there's some new information to discuss. I learned a great deal from participating in this discussion, and I hope that we can continue to work together as a community.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Realistically, the indications are that AVEN is not going to adopt a definition which isn't supported by current science and which would exclude a portion of those who currently identify as asexual (sex-favourable asexuals, and at least some gray-asexuals and demisexuals), and that AVEN is ethically committed to the self-identification principle.

And honestly, I consider that horrible - horrible enough that I am leaving over this. I do not and will not stand for what you/they stand for. 

[Amadeo]

Myst, why is a clear label even that necessary? The least vague labels are, the more we need, and the more complicated the issue becomes. I find it more useful to have an easy label to situate yourself in general, but the rest should be described by how you feel, not labels. Human sexuality is too diverse to be encompassed by just four sexual identities. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Amadeo said:

Myst, why is a clear label even that necessary? The least vague labels are, the more we need, and the more complicated the issue becomes. I find it more useful to have an easy label to situate yourself in general, but the rest should be described by how you feel, not labels. Human sexuality is too diverse to be encompassed by just four sexual identities. 

Because this site tries to pass off "asexuality" as an orientation valid enough to merit inclusion into LGBT+.

[TheYear2017]

Honestly, the utility in a definition (of anything) comes from the ability of people to understand what something means or is. So.... if 99% of the world is comprised of sexual people who say they more easily understand what the term desire gets at, why not use that as the definition? The goal of a definition is to express to other groups what asexuality is and help them understand it. Why not choose the definition that helps them do that, as they have so clearly expressed before?? Otherwise the definition loses its utility.

 

Also, as an asexual, for me a definition based on "sexual attraction" was utterly worthless because I had no idea if I've ever experienced sexual attraction. People say "you know when you feel it!" and all that did for me was make me question whether I was still asexual because no one could tell me what sexual attraction was. Even discussing with some of my close sexual friends they were confused what the heck sexual attraction was supposed to be. It wasn't until I came back to them and stated "I don't have the intrinsic desire to have partnered sex!" that they said "Oh! That makes much more sense." It also wasn't until I read the definition (thanks to Pan's signature!!) putting it in terms of no desire for partnered sex that I understood without a doubt that I was asexual. Putting it in desire terms allowed me to ask myself "do I have an inherent desire for partnered sex?" and I could say no, which means I'm asexual. The sexual attraction definition opened up questions such as "what is sexual attraction?" and confused me further.

 

So what is the point of using a definition that inherently does not actually clarify the term it is supposed to be defining? It has been demonstrated time and again that a definition with sexual attraction does not actually help clarify what the term asexuality means- for sexuals or asexuals.

[Amadeo]

5 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Because this site tries to pass off "asexuality" as an orientation valid enough to merit inclusion into LGBT+.

Okay, I see. 

I shouldn't (because I am not involved in this level of politics) but I am compelled to ask, still, why does it matter? It's not like the L, G, B, and T are not self-defined either. Trans can mean anything from merely not having a strong sense of gender to having fully transitioned to the opposite sex. If you think of the Kinsey scale, the spectrum of gays and lesbian is as diverse as that of the asexuals, hence the B. Though I am sure lots of bisexuals only identify as hetero or homo. And probably lots of mainly hetero or homo identify as bisexuals. Furthermore, no one can even tell the difference between bisexual and pansexual, it's all up to the person what it means. All in all, AVEN's definition of asexuality will not muddle things further. LGBT+ also includes allies for dog-sake so don't worry too much. 

 

If you are worried about demisexuals passing as asexuals, well, what's the deal? Sure, they might be able to live quite heteronormative lives, but they still do encounter certain struggles. And identifying as asexual spectrum may help them come to terms with these. Why would someone identify as asexual if they do not feel any sort of alienation from heteronormativity? And if they're only doing it for attention and they love labels, then, they'll find a way whichever way you define it anyway. 

All in all, I am just missing why this is horrible.