Question about the main page definition of asexuality

[aceidk]

Hope I'm posting in the right section!

 

AVEN is often cited as a source for asexuality knowledge, so, naturally, there's a lot of pressure to have the right information displayed.

 

I was wondering--is the definition on the main page accurate? "An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction." Would this not exclude sexual fetishists who experience sexual attraction to objects? Wikpiedia defines it as "the lack of sexual attraction to anyone" which feels less ambiguous to me and more complete.

 

What do you think?

[Rynn]

I'd personally say that a person who is sexually attracted to and desires sex with objects is sexual rather than asexual, but I'm going to summon @Anthracite_Impreza because they know more about this.

 

On another note, a lot of people on AVEN would argue that a better definition for asexuality is "an asexual is a person that lacks innate desire for partnered sex", but that definition doesn't really account for those on the objectum sexuality spectrum, so I don't think that's what you're looking for.

[aceidk]

Just now, Laurann said:

I'd personally say that a person who is sexually attracted to and desires sex with objects is sexual rather than asexual, but I'm going to summon @Anthracite_Impreza because they know more about this.

 

Hmm, what would you say is their sexual orientation then? To my knowledge, sexual orientation is defined in relation to genders, and asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to any gender.

 

Just now, Laurann said:

On another note, a lot of people on AVEN would argue that a better definition for asexuality is "an asexual is a person that lacks innate desire for partnered sex"

 

To my knowledge, some sex-favorable asexuals and cupiosexuals desire partnered sex without feeling sexual attraction to the partner. Would you say they are not asexuals then?

[Rynn]

Just now, aceidk said:

Hmm, what would you say is their sexual orientation then? To my knowledge, sexual orientation is defined in relation to genders, and asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to any gender.

You might be right about that, I just thought their orientation would be whatever type of object they're attracted to (cars, bridges, statues), but I'm not sure. I don't know enough about this, that's why I'd like Anthracite's input. They're on the objectum sexuality spectrum sort of. You should be talking to them.

 

2 minutes ago, aceidk said:

To my knowledge, some sex-favorable asexuals and cupiosexuals desire partnered sex without feeling sexual attraction to the partner. Would you say they are not asexuals then?

The way I see it cupiosexuals are a subset of sexuals. If sex-favorable asexuals desire sex, then they're not asexual, they're cupiosexual. If they don't desire sex, they're asexual. 

But I don't want to have a rehash of the definition debate here. There have been plenty of threads on that already. Click on these:

 

[aceidk]

15 minutes ago, Laurann said:

The way I see it cupiosexuals are a subset of sexuals. If sex-favorable asexuals desire sex, then they're not asexual, they're cupiosexual. If they don't desire sex, they're asexual.

 

 

3

That's a very surprising view to hear, and, as far as I know, it goes against the current research in asexuality. Sexual orientation is defined with respect to sexual attraction, not sexual behavior, and cataloging someone who experiences no sexual attraction to any gender as non-asexual is at the very least dubious.

 

I read some of the discussions in the links you provided, and I see that some users agree with your definition.

 

To others:

Does AVEN still support the view that sexual behavior defines sexual orientation? Please understand that as an authority in the field and a self-declared educational resources you have the responsibility to educate your users.

 

Edit: After reading more carefully, I understand that AVEN does not support the theory that cupiosexuals are not asexuals (i.e. from the definition itself and from the philosophy that the definition should be inclusionary) This makes me happy, and I'm sorry for the tone of the question above.

 

However, I would still like to discuss the original idea that triggered the thread--namely, the potential exclusion of fetishists.

[Rynn]

Just now, aceidk said:

That's a very surprising view to hear, and, as far as I know, it goes against the current research in asexuality. Sexual orientation is defined with respect to sexual attraction, not sexual behavior, and cataloging someone who experiences no sexual attraction to any gender as non-asexual is at the very least dubious.

No no, I'm not defining asexuality by behavior at all. Desire isn't behavior. 

 

Maybe this will make it clearer. This is something I've seen sex favorable asexuals on here say: Imagine sex is pie. I can enjoy pie when someone gives me some. Otherwise I don't really want pie. I could comfortably live my life without thinking about pie ever again.

For them the feeling of wanting sex isn't there. There's no craving, no desire.

 

Cupiosexuals would be people who do have that craving, that desire. They're just never attracted to anyone. They're like "I want sex, but every time I'm with someone I'm like 'Nah, not with this one.'" Of course they could still do it with that person even though they're not sexually attracted to them, and they could still enjoy it.

 

Whether these people have sex or not has no impact on whether they're asexual. The thing that matters is whether they desire sex.

 

The reason I don't like the attraction-based definition is that it's vague. How are people supposed to know whether they've felt sexual attraction if they have no idea what it is? Sexual attraction feels different for everyone. Ask ten sexual people what sexual attraction is and you'll get ten different answers. That's not exactly helpful, and it's not exactly a solid thing to base a definition on.

 

There seem to be a lot of people on here who have the impression that sexual attraction has to be this instant thing. Like, you see some random attractive stranger and you immediately want to have sex with them. Of course the majority of the population doesn't experience sexual attraction like that. For most people it's a lot more subtle than that. According to some people all of them would be asexual. The problem is that sexual attraction is such a poorly defined term that anyone can misunderstand what it is and say they don't feel it and therefore are asexual. We would then get an 'asexual' community full of people who love having sex and wouldn't feel complete without it, but just experience sexual attraction in a more subtle way. Does that really help anyone?

Sexual desire is much simpler. You just ask yourself whether you have that innate desire for sex and if you don't, then you're asexual. It's harder to misinterpret.

[aceidk]

I understand your view, and I disagree with it. Some people enjoy sex--they see it as a pleasurable, enjoyable activity--so, naturally, they seek it; they have a desire to have sex. However, they don't experience sexual attraction to anyone, so, according to the AVEN definition and the academic consensus, a lack of sexual attraction implies asexuality.

 

I have no interest to support an exclusionary definition out of convenience, and I would prefer to keep the thread focused on my initial question.

 

Edit: However, I do think you have a fair point that sexual desire and sexual attraction are different, and maybe they deserve different labels. However, in this thread, I would like to talk about asexuality as a sexual orientation (thus attraction-based model)

[aceidk]

After some research, I believe I could answer my initial question:

 

Is sexual attraction defined exclusively as "attraction to people"? If this is so, they I see how "to anyone" would be redundant in the definition, but is there a source that confirms my guess?

[Pramana]

2 hours ago, aceidk said:

After some research, I believe I could answer my initial question:

 

Is sexual attraction defined exclusively as "attraction to people"? If this is so, they I see how "to anyone" would be redundant in the definition, but is there a source that confirms my guess?

You might be interested in these threads. For what it's worth, I like the definition provided by @Flygunn in the comments below the first one:
 

 

 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Ooh I have been summoned, do I get cake?

 

Ok so I'm objectum ace, but I know objectum sexuals too. The main difference between a fetish and OS is that a fetish is simply something 'unusual' that gets you off; OS is much more complicated. Something draws you in to certain things, keeps you there, you feel a deep connection that is sometimes reciprocated, just like anthro-orientations. You'd feel like you'd lost a limb if you lost your loved ones the same as if you lost your loved people. Most, like me, don't even like saying object because it removes their importance; they aren't just 'it's, they're someone you hold dear, who makes your stomach squirm, someone who makes you cry when you think how lucky you are to have them. A fetish doesn't hold a candle to the depth and intimacy of OS.

 

Oh, and I'm with @Laurann on the definition. The only thing sexuals have in common is that they sometimes desire sex. Only about half (mostly males, which most research has been carried out on) even experience 'attraction'.

[Rynn]

16 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Ooh I have been summoned, do I get cake?

Of course you do!

[Anthracite_Impreza]

7 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Of course you do!

 

Spoiler

 

That's so cute 

[Pramana]

On 6/18/2017 at 6:43 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Only about half (mostly males, which most research has been carried out on) even experience 'attraction'.

This is factually inaccurate. If there are studies which show this, then why does every psychologist and sociologist who publishes on asexuality define it as a lack of sexual attraction? In light of that evidence, the above claim does not appear to be logical. See this thread for more info:
 

 

[Éadweard]

On 6/17/2017 at 4:46 PM, aceidk said:

Hope I'm posting in the right section!

 

AVEN is often cited as a source for asexuality knowledge, so, naturally, there's a lot of pressure to have the right information displayed.

 

I was wondering--is the definition on the main page accurate? "An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction." Would this not exclude sexual fetishists who experience sexual attraction to objects? Wikpiedia defines it as "the lack of sexual attraction to anyone" which feels less ambiguous to me and more complete.

 

What do you think?

Yes. It's. Accurate.