Jump to content

Asexuality needs a narrower standard of definition


Éowyn21

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Éowyn21 said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2893352/

He operationalizes asexuality as, individuals who say that “they have never felt sexual attraction to anyone at all” (2004: 279). In this description, he is explicitly focusing not on behavior, or identity, but on desire.

Yes, sexual desire towards a person is equivalent to sexual attraction to a person--that is Bogaert's view whom they cite in your quote. It clearly says in your quote that is "explicitly focusing not on bevavior" but rather on sexually desiring "anyone at all."

 

I guess these threads continue to be based on misreading evidence, cherrypicking the same ambiguous paragraph from Understanding Asexuality, and ignoring AVEN's wiki definition in favour of the FAQ one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad
1 hour ago, Éowyn21 said:

Okay that doesn't make any sense becaese the statement, "there is no objective truth" is not a fact, it's an opinion that can easily be refuted. How can you claim objectively that there is "no objective truth", when you claim there is no such thing as objectivity? There are clearly objective truths in the world. For instance, two plus two will always equal 4 regardless of anyone's opinion. It doesn't matter whether or not you think gravity exists because it does. Also, asexuals do not desire sex, while sexuals desire sex. Homosexuals desire sex with same the sex, heterosexuals desire sex with the opposite sex. These are all objective facts.

Ever read 1984? I was wondering if you would call me on that. Allow me to amend my statement. There is probably no objective truth because everything we see in this world is seen through our own subjective lens. I'm not claiming objectively that there is no objective truth....that is kinda the point. What I said was in response to your question "Why does anyone's opinions matter in the first place?" They matter because the facts we have in this world stemmed from opinions. I'm not going to argue with you over the objectiveness of physical sciences nd mathematics because I don't know a lot about them. I was referring more to the conclusions we draw from the discoveries we have. The classifications we have, like race, were created from subjective ideas--opinions. Opinions drive how we interpret the world and that is why opinions matter.

 

I'm not arguing with you about the definition of asexuality. I prefer the desire-based one. I just think that opinions matter, which of course is an opinion. It's an odd criticism to make to @Pramana about using scientific literature. You wrote yourself that there are different "sects" of psychologists and scientists that Pramana is quoting specifically to support his opinions, however I don't think this is an apt criticism. The fact that you are acknowledging that there are different "sects" implies that you realize that science's so-called pursuit for the "objective, universal truth" is led by individual scientists' opinions. It's a little odd, and I commented on what you wrote to Pramana because I did not understand what you were getting at. Basically, if there is an objective truth out there, I don't think we uncover it any time soon, if ever.

 

Besides that, aren't you yourself expressing your opinion that there should be a narrower definition for asexuality? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad
1 hour ago, neon signs in the night said:

Not taking any side here, but I must say. In terms of numbers and science, there certainly are objective, measurable truths. However, let's face it: you can't conclusively measure human sexuality the way you can measure science and numbers. You can't draw blood or do a brain scan and work out their Kinsey scale to a decimal point.

As you'll see in my other post, I was mostly referring to how we interpret findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Éowyn21 said:

Why does anyone's opinions matter in the first place? Why does what you regard as defintive matter? First of all, why should what one sect of psychologists or sociologists therorize on a subject automatically be pushed as universal truth to be respected, when there are other theories that refute them? Second of all, have you have ever stopped to consider you are simply projecting you're own bias on what these psychologists are saying and extrapolating this idea of "desiring sex regularly, yet asexual" from beyond what is objectively being stated?  You take that idea and apply it to laws that happen to mention asexuality, then all the sudden what is logically impossible becomes universal truth. There is no universal consensus that human beings can be stimutaenously asexual and hypersexual, much to the contrary. You are simply trying to a create a groupthink mentality, where as long as one person or a certain number of people thinks what is logically incoherent is true, then it has to be respected as truth.

If we have to solve the epistemic problem of knowledge before we can define asexuality, then we might be in for a long debate!

Besides that, I thought I would briefly address some points you raise.

1. One sect of psychologists/sociologists – What are you talking about? I have been able to find precisely zero psychologists/sociologists who support a desire-only definition. Where is there another sect?

2. Academic recognition of sex-favourable asexuality – Here's a discussion of the topic by sociologist Mark Carrigan: https://markcarrigan.net/2014/08/27/on-sex-favourable-asexuality/
https://markcarrigan.net/2013/09/05/asexuality-identity-and-scratching-an-itch/

3. The scientific and judicial consensus – I'm not claiming it's absolute universal truth, but it is a far better resource than mere opinion. It is also what will matter in the real world when decisions are made with respect to these issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, a minor triad said:

Ever read 1984? I was wondering if you would call me on that. Allow me to amend my statement. There is probably no objective truth because everything we see in this world is seen through our own subjective lens. I'm not claiming objectively that there is no objective truth....that is kinda the point. What I said was in response to your question "Why does anyone's opinions matter in the first place?" They matter because the facts we have in this world stemmed from opinions. I'm not going to argue with you over the objectiveness of physical sciences nd mathematics because I don't know a lot about them. I was referring more to the conclusions we draw from the discoveries we have. The classifications we have, like race, were created from subjective ideas--opinions. Opinions drive how we interpret the world and that is why opinions matter.

 

I'm not arguing with you about the definition of asexuality. I prefer the desire-based one. I just think that opinions matter, which of course is an opinion. It's an odd criticism to make to @Pramana about using scientific literature. You wrote yourself that there are different "sects" of psychologists and scientists that Pramana is quoting specifically to support his opinions, however I don't think this is an apt criticism. The fact that you are acknowledging that there are different "sects" implies that you realize that science's so-called pursuit for the "objective, universal truth" is led by individual scientists' opinions. It's a little odd, and I commented on what you wrote to Pramana because I did not understand what you were getting at. Basically, if there is an objective truth out there, I don't think we uncover it any time soon, if ever.

 

Besides that, aren't you yourself expressing your opinion that there should be a narrower definition for asexuality? 

Perhaps you misunderstood the intentions of my previous statements. I never said people's opinions do not matter, much to the contrary.  When I ask, "why does anyone's opinions matter in the first place ", and "why does what you regard as definitive matter", I'm saying this in response to @Pramana, when she asked, "why does who you consider asexual matter"? I'm playing devils advocate by questioning her line of thinking. Why does who I regard as asexual matter? Well because it's what I and many other people believe to be true based on logic. I'm asserting the people's opinions do matter, especially when the can logically be proven. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AndrogynousLuve

Fully supporting @Éowyn21 in her/his/their views. Sometimes logic beats everything else. Even scientists make mistakes which leads to science evolution. Clearer definition for asexuality would be good for community and the label won't be exploited. 

Some users here don't understand how sexuality works. You can't desire and seek sex with the opposite sex and be straight. Equally asexuals can't desire and seek sex if they are asexual. There were stories about straight men who tried to get it with gay men and probably enjoyed some sexual activities but: 1.there is still a big debate whether these men are bi or hetero, 2: they're still sexual, either be or hetero. It's different from asexual person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad

 

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

Note that your definition of transgender does not entail your definition of gender dysphoria. I have read stories from transgender identifying people who say they are fine with their body and who don't wish to transition.

This is slightly irrelevant, but I believe the DSM-5 does not distinguish Gender Dysphoria from being transgender. In fact, I believe the DSM-5 actually refers to transgenderism as transsexuality (not sure if there is a difference). I'm not going to lie though, that entire section in the DSM-5 confused me so much. But you actually brought up a good point of comparing our definition debate to that of the trans community and being "trans enough."

 

37 minutes ago, Éowyn21 said:

I never said you could measure human sexuality quantitatively. However, can you can define and describe the qualities of human sexuality and asexuality objectively.

No. No you can't. Psychologists will always strive to define constructs and measure data as objectively as possible, but when you are dealing with people and social issues, etc., we will never achieve true objectivity.

 

1 minute ago, Éowyn21 said:

Perhaps you misunderstood the intentions of my previous statements. I never said people's opinions do not matter, much to the contrary.  When I ask, "why does anyone's opinions matter in the first place ", and " why "does what you regard as definitive matter", I'm saying this response to @Pramana, when she asked, "why does who you consider asexual matter"? I'm playing devils advocate by questioning her line of thinking. Why does who I regard as asexual matter? Well because it's what I and many other people believe to be true based on basic logic. I'm asserting the people's opinions do matter, epscapply when the can logically be proven. 

Ok, you see, I wasn't sure if you were asking that as a serious question, but I assumed you were, given the rest of what you wrote after that statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, a minor triad said:

but when you are dealing with people and social issues, etc., we will never achieve true objectivity.

I'm pretty sure you can describe states of beings or conditions objectively. Just like how can you describe what it to be depressed, bipolar, or narcoleptic objectively. These aren't just matters of opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad
23 minutes ago, Éowyn21 said:

I'm pretty sure you can describe states of beings or conditions objectively. Just like how can you describe what it to be depressed, bipolar, or narcoleptic objectively. These aren't just matters of opinion. 

Not in the social sciences. I think that is a generally accepted belief amongst anthropology, sociology, and psychology. And yes, how we define depression and bipolar disorder are actually matter of opinions. I am not familiar with narcolepsy because I think that falls closer to health rather than mental health, but how we define and diagnose mental disorders is very much subjective. The DSM-5 clues us in on that fact. It has been updated 5 times and each time, definitions and criteria shift. 

 

Diagnosing someone with a mental illness is a matter of opinion. I cannot stress that point enough. Psychology is built off of opinions. Psychologists come together and decide how to define mental disorders and what counts as a mental disorder. They then create arbitrary criteria that psychiatrists and therapists use as guidelines to help them diagnose a person. One client may go to three different psychiatrists and they will probably all give this person a different diagnosis. One might say this person has Bipolar II, another say Major Depression, while another still might say it is a personality disorder. Social sciences are subjective. They try to be objective as possible because when compared to "hard" sciences it is clear how subjective these sciences are. The only reason why social sciences try to be objective is because they wouldn't be taken seriously otherwise. Think Freud and the other psychodynamic thinkers. Did some of their ideas have value? Possibly, but they were not objective, so to correct for that psychology gives of the appearance of objectivity but it is just that.

 

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

Fully supporting @Éowyn21 in her/his/their views. Sometimes logic beats everything else. Even scientists make mistakes which leads to science evolution. Clearer definition for asexuality would be good for community and the label won't be exploited. 

Some users here don't understand how sexuality works. You can't desire and seek sex with the opposite sex and be straight. Equally asexuals can't desire and seek sex if they are asexual. There were stories about straight men who tried to get it with gay men and probably enjoyed some sexual activities but: 1.there is still a big debate whether these men are bi or hetero, 2: they're still sexual, either be or hetero. It's different from asexual person. 

If you've reached such a revolutionary logical discovery here, then why not submit it to a human sexuality journal? You actually think you've refuted what's been the consensus view in the field since the 1970s, as well as Darwin's theory of evolution by sexual selection? This would be an opportunity to get famous, so I would suggest that if you really have logic on your side then you should take advantage of it. However, with all due respect, that's highly unlikely. I'm pretty sure that science is based on logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did "attraction" become a narrower term than "desire"? If you desire sex there are obviously elements of it you find attractive but if you feel sexual attraction it does not necessitate desire. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad

Wait, is "attraction" considered a narrower term than "desire"? I thought the argument is that the desire-based definition is narrower.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

@Pramana; You're obsessed with the thoughts of 'academics' (who are just humans); have you actually thought about this yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites
hippygeek78
19 hours ago, Éowyn21 said:

AVEN is contradicting themselves when they say anyone can be asexual just based on a whim of what they think asexuality is.  They're making it seem like asexuality is a choice

AVEN is saying nothing of the sort.  They are saying AVEN is a place where people's exploration and self-identify should be supported and respected, even if they make mistakes along the way:

 

Quote

Being inclusive, to us, means creating a platform where people are free to explore their identities, to self-determine and to be respected while doing so. Exploring our identities can take time, it can sometimes involve mistakes, changes of heart, feeling “broken” or “lost”, and it is important that our community steps in for support and friendship during all of this.

Again, it's not about definitions.  It's a simple site policy about politeness and respect to other members.  Is that really so hard to agree to?

 

22 hours ago, Éowyn21 said:

I'm not going to to believe [...] I'm not going to affirm

Nobody is asking you to affirm anything, or telling you what to believe.  You are welcome to hold whatever opinions you like, and consider people's identities as "wrong" as you like.

 

But TELLING someone their orientation or gender is wrong, is expressly crossing a line established by AVEN.

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

@Pramana; You're obsessed with the thoughts of 'academics' (who are just humans); have you actually thought about this yourself?

Sure, academics make mistakes all the time. But when there's a consensus or a near consensus about something in a field of study, and that consensus has been stable for a long time, there's good reason to think it's probably right. In the addition, it seems that the law is following attraction-based models of sexual orientation and self-identification. Nevertheless, if there is a significant theoretical shift at some point in the future, then I'll change my view to reflect that.

Logically, there are obvious advantages to an attraction-based model. For example, plenty of people desire to be sexual with sex toys. By a desire-based model of sexual orientation all those people would be objectum sexuals, which seems implausible.

That said, it makes sense that people would be less likely to desire partnered sex if they don't find anyone attractive. Hence, I suspect that sex-favourable asexuals are less common, and that hypersexual sex-favourable asexuals are probably exceptionally rare (although an interesting theoretical possibility).

On the other hand, there appear to be a fair number of people in the community who experience both sexual desire and attraction to some degree, but who don't wish to be sexually active for whatever reason. Hence, I've realized that there's a divide between asexuality as an orientation (which could potentially include people who exhibit high levels of sexual desire and behaviour) and asexuality as not having sex or not being interesting in sex, which could include people who are celibate for nonreligious reasons (like people who are sex-repulsed).
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

I am new to this site, and so must confess that I really do not understand a lot of the stuff you guys are talking about.

 

I have, however, learned a little about myself on this journey and I am wondering if my experience might shed some light on some things

 

Almost 40% of the folk that have participated in the following poll, have said they identify as ace, and they also have aphantasia

 

Me too!

 

I cannot speak for everybody that has aphantasia, but I cannot experience sexual attraction to strangers or pornography or folk on TV etc. In fact it is incredibly hard for me to experience sexual attraction and looking back over my life, I really do not think I have experienced it before (maybe once before) but right now in my current relationship for the first time ever I have, and continue to do so

 

Before this relationship, I had no sexual attraction and low desire. Very low, so low that almost all my adult life I was living as an asexual, and was more than happy to live that way. I had no attraction, no desire, did not masturbate and so on

 

But now that I am in this particular relationship I now experience both attraction and desire.

 

I am clearly not a 'true' asexual, I am a demisexual. But there was zero way for me to know this until I entered this current relationship

 

I have tried to have relationships in the past but they failed. What is different about this relationship is I feel loved and wanted by my partner. She is sexual in a way I can relate to, this has never happened before. We relate intellectually, romantically, in a fun way and so on. All this stuff needed to be in place before I could experience the sexual attraction.

 

I really do believe this not being able to visualise, not being able to fantasize has played a massive role in all this. I have come to this conclusion from taking to sexuals and doing all I can to understand exactly what goes on when they are sexually attracted. If you ask them about how they use their minds eye to think about the person they are looking at, things begin to make sense. Well they did for me, anyway 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
3 hours ago, Pramana said:

Logically, there are obvious advantages to an attraction-based model. For example, plenty of people desire to be sexual with sex toys. By a desire-based model of sexual orientation all those people would be objectum sexuals, which seems implausible.

...Are you kidding? A 'sex-favorable asexual' can claim they desire partnered sex but feel no sexual attraction to people - "it just feels good, like human sex toys" is something I have literally seen people say - and it makes perfect sense to you that they can still be asexual, but if an asexual that desires NO partnered sex dares masturbate with a sex toy, that makes them object-sexual..? What the fuck.. is even.. I cannot begin to fathom your logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Éowyn21

Hi! I agree with you in that I think the definition should be desire-based, but I also disagree with you on a lot of other things. Don't take this as a personal attack, that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm just late to this whole discussion and have a lot of opinions, that's why this is so long :).

 

1. I don't think it's fair to wield a definition like a weapon. Sure, in my opinion people who feel sexual desire towards others don't technically classify as asexuals, but if they think they do fit that box, then who am I to tell them they don't? I can't read their minds. I can't feel what they feel. I don't know their life experiences. I don't know whether what they mean when they say 'sexual desire' is the same thing as what I mean.

 

2. I was under the impression that 'hypersexual' referred to someone who has a high libido. Asexuals can have high libido's (for solo sex), so hypersexual asexuals can exist. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'm using the right definition of hypersexual here, but that's how I've seen it defined up to now. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

3. Someone in this thread said this really well, but I'm too lazy to go back and look for it, so I'll just say it in my own words: Sex-favorable asexuals do not desire and actively seek sex, they simply have the ability to enjoy it. Enjoyment and desire are not the same thing, so sex-favorable aces can exist.

 

4. You said somewhere that you don't think feelings should determine whether a person is trans or not. I do feel that the trans thing has maybe gone a bit overboard when people start identifying as 'oceangender' or something (that's a real thing, I'm not making it up), but I wouldn't ever tell anyone that they're not trans. I do feel the definition of who is considered trans should be based on how those people feel. Gender dysphoria is also a feeling after all.

 

5. I do believe that trans people who don't experience gender dysphoria exist. How would they even know they're trans, you say? Gender euphoria. That's the opposite of gender dysphoria. It's a feeling of finally being perceived the right way, or of finally having the right type of body. Just like gender dysphoria is a feeling of 'wrongness', gender euphoria is a feeling of 'rightness'.

 

6. Yes, there is a difference between transgender and transsexual. Transsexual is an outdated medical term. It has fallen out of use because it allowed cis doctors to decide who was and wasn't trans based on a couple of 'symptoms' (which trans people would then fake having in order to get the treatment they wanted, which ended up reaffirming the doctors' initial beliefs about trans people). Transsexual, as far as I know, does not include nonbinary people, while transgender does.

 

7. On the topic of objectivity. I think it would be helpful to distinguish between the philosophical schools of rationalism and empiricism here (bear with me).

 

Things you can objectively know according to a rationalist are things you don't have to use your senses for, since they think your senses can be tricked. Things they would consider objectively true are for example 2+2=4, a circle is round, one person cannot be exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual at the same time. These statements can be considered true or false by looking at their definitions alone, without taking the real world into consideration.

 

Empiricism goes in the opposite direction. Empiricists think objective truth lies in the real world, not in the world of ideas. Statements they would consider true would be things like 'that chair is red,' 'this flower smells sweet,' 'this ball is round,' 'this person looks sad.' You have to use your senses to get that knowledge.

 

Your argument that hypersexual or sex-favourable asexuals cannot exist is based in rationalism. You look at the definitions of these words and conclude that they are inherently incompatible, they're oxymorons. (I use different definitions, so I disagree, but that's beside the point right now) And that's great, you can base assertions like that solely on definitions, but the problem arises when you take those definitions that work so well in theory and apply them directly to the real world and to real people. Those don't neatly fit into labels, boxes and definitions. Feelings (desire is a feeling) are among the things that are most difficult to pin down.

 

I don't think anyone should try to fit anyone but themselves into any label, box or definition. Nobody will fit any box perfectly, but we can get close to having an accurate label. In order to get close, however, you need as much information on the person you're trying to label as possible and the person who has the most information will always be yourself.

 

So, I think we should define asexuality as a lack of desire for partnered sex (or a lack of sexual attraction, in which attraction is defined as a feeling that leads to sexual desire), but then we let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they fit that definition. We'd then have to define desire for partnered sex, which is a whole other can of worms (I vote for 'actively seeking out sex with another person in order to get physical pleasure or emotional intimacy out of it' http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/137974-what-counts-as-sexual-desire/#comment-1061741254), but at least we'd be getting somewhere.

We would then be allowed to explain our constellation of interrelated definitions to new members, and gently push them in a different direction when we think they've got their definitions wrong, but we would not be allowed to tell people whether they fit these definitions, since we do not know their experiences and their reasons for identifying as asexual.

 

4 hours ago, Pramana said:

On the other hand, there appear to be a fair number of people in the community who experience both sexual desire and attraction to some degree, but who don't wish to be sexually active for whatever reason. Hence, I've realized that there's a divide between asexuality as an orientation (which could potentially include people who exhibit high levels of sexual desire and behaviour) and asexuality as not having sex or not being interesting in sex, which could include people who are celibate for nonreligious reasons (like people who are sex-repulsed).

I disagree with changing the definition to encompass ever wider groups of people. Asexuality is an orientation. Asexuality is not 'not having sex' or 'not being interested in sex for religious reasons'. Those are clearly different things. I'm not saying they're not valid, I just think that it's nonsensical to try to squeeze all of these vastly different experiences into one word. Why not make up a new word for these non-asexual people who don't see themselves as sexual? Non-sexual for example? Or how about celibate?

I'm not going to tell them they're not asexual, because I don't know their life, but I won't make changes to the constellation of interrelated definitions that is asexuality in order to squeeze unrelated experiences in.

 

4 hours ago, Pramana said:

For example, plenty of people desire to be sexual with sex toys. By a desire-based model of sexual orientation all those people would be objectum sexuals, which seems implausible.

There's a huge difference between using an object as a tool to get yourself off with and actual objectum sexuality, which, to my limited understanding, is much more of a mutual interaction between two... entities, just like regular partnered sex. Just because you don't believe objects can be anything but tools, doesn't mean that's everyone's experience of the world. As far as I know, people on the objectum sexuality spectrum believe that objects have souls and that they can somehow communicate and form emotional bonds with those objects, which would then consent to sex. (I don't personally believe in this, but I'm not gonna judge.)

 

This equivalence you draw is ridiculous and insulting both to people on the objectum sexuality spectrum and to regular sexual people. People OS spectrum don't just use their objects as mere tools to get off and I sure hope regular sexual people don't use other people that way either. WTF are you thinking comparing OS to masturbation with toys?!

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

the definition should be desire-based

[...]

Asexuality is an orientation.

 

Sexual orientations are based on sexual attractions, not on sexual desires towards sexual activities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2017 at 8:49 PM, a minor triad said:

Not in the social sciences. I think that is a generally accepted belief amongst anthropology, sociology, and psychology. And yes, how we define depression and bipolar disorder are actually matter of opinions. I am not familiar with narcolepsy because I think that falls closer to health rather than mental health, but how we define and diagnose mental disorders is very much subjective. The DSM-5 clues us in on that fact. It has been updated 5 times and each time, definitions and criteria shift. 

 

Diagnosing someone with a mental illness is a matter of opinion. I cannot stress that point enough. Psychology is built off of opinions. Psychologists come together and decide how to define mental disorders and what counts as a mental disorder. They then create arbitrary criteria that psychiatrists and therapists use as guidelines to help them diagnose a person. One client may go to three different psychiatrists and they will probably all give this person a different diagnosis. One might say this person has Bipolar II, another say Major Depression, while another still might say it is a personality disorder. Social sciences are subjective. They try to be objective as possible because when compared to "hard" sciences it is clear how subjective these sciences are. The only reason why social sciences try to be objective is because they wouldn't be taken seriously otherwise. Think Freud and the other psychodynamic thinkers. Did some of their ideas have value? Possibly, but they were not objective, so to correct for that psychology gives of the appearance of objectivity but it is just that.

 

There's a difference between receiving a wrong diagnosis and all diagnoses just being based solely on opinion. People can also receive wrong medical diagnoses pertaining to physical health, yet that in no way implies all medical diagnoses are just random opinions. Moreover, there's not much evidence in what you're saying here. I have never heard of someone going to a psychiatrist, then going to a different psychiatrist and receiving a completely different diagnosis . If they give consistent information, there's no reason for the diagnoses to turn out differently. Also, our understanding of the world has evolved throughout history. The DSM changing its criteria is not indicative of complete subjectivity, it's indicative of recently acquired knowledge through research. This how the scientific method works. People such as Newton were either wrong or incomplete in their theories, that in no way implies objective conclusions cannot be reached and supported through science, regardless of whether its "hard" or "soft" science. 

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

So, I think we should define asexuality as a lack of desire for partnered sex (or a lack of sexual attraction, in which attraction is defined as a feeling that leads to sexual desire), but then we let everyone decide for themselves whether or not they fit that definition. We'd then have to define desire for partnered sex, which is a whole other can of worms (I vote for 'actively seeking out sex with another person in order to get physical pleasure or emotional intimacy out of it' http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/137974-what-counts-as-sexual-desire/#comment-1061741254), but at least we'd be getting somewhere.

We would then be allowed to explain our constellation of interrelated definitions to new members, and gently push them in a different direction when we think they've got their definitions wrong, but we would not be allowed to tell people whether they fit these definitions, since we do not know their experiences and their reasons for identifying as asexual.

Okay, I agree with what you're saying.  I believe AVEN should have an official definition of asexuality based on the lack desire for partnered sex to make things clear and simple for everyone. However, I think its fair that people would do not fit that definition would be allowed on the forum, of coarse. They are welcomed to think whatever about themselves, however inaccurate it may be to me and others. Although, I'm somewhat unsure about this policy of not being allowed to tell someone they don't fit the definition of what it means to asexual. I mean if we provide an official definition, we are effectively telling these people they are not asexual. That doesn't mean I'm going around screaming at people who are using the label incorrectly, but I think the tone is what matters. 

 

2 hours ago, Laurann said:

You said somewhere that you don't think feelings should determine whether a person is trans or not.

Perhaps, you misunderstood me because I never stated this; that's alright of coarse. 

 

2 hours ago, Laurann said:

. On the topic of objectivity. I think it would be helpful to distinguish between the philosophical schools of rationalism and empiricism here (bear with me).

Thank you for this piece of knowledge! I knew of empiricism, but I had never heard of rationalism before. Overall, I think what you're saying is correct because I don't we should be hostile towards people who don't fit the definition.  I was just trying to explain my reasoning candidly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alejandrogynous said:

...Are you kidding? A 'sex-favorable asexual' can claim they desire partnered sex but feel no sexual attraction to people - "it just feels good, like human sex toys" is something I have literally seen people say - and it makes perfect sense to you that they can still be asexual, but if an asexual that desires NO partnered sex dares masturbate with a sex toy, that makes them object-sexual..? What the fuck.. is even.. I cannot begin to fathom your logic.

 

2 hours ago, Laurann said:

@Éowyn21This equivalence you draw is ridiculous and insulting both to people on the objectum sexuality spectrum and to regular sexual people. People OS spectrum don't just use their objects as mere tools to get off and I sure hope regular sexual people don't use other people that way either. WTF are you thinking comparing OS to masturbation with toys?!

You have both misinterpreted me on this point. I am saying that by a desire-based model of sexual orientations, that is the absurd conclusion you would get. That is why you need an attraction-based model. Objectum sexuals are attracted to objects, whereas typically people who use sex toys are not, although they desire to be sexual with those objects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laurann said:

I disagree with changing the definition to encompass ever wider groups of people. Asexuality is an orientation. Asexuality is not 'not having sex' or 'not being interested in sex for religious reasons'. Those are clearly different things. I'm not saying they're not valid, I just think that it's nonsensical to try to squeeze all of these vastly different experiences into one word. Why not make up a new word for these non-asexual people who don't see themselves as sexual? Non-sexual for example? Or how about celibate?

I'm not going to tell them they're not asexual, because I don't know their life, but I won't make changes to the constellation of interrelated definitions that is asexuality in order to squeeze unrelated experiences in.

 

If asexuality is an orientation then it should be defined as a lack of sexual attraction, since all other sexual orientations are defined according to directions of sexual attraction. There is a virtual consensus throughout the fields of psychology, sociology, and law on this point. I do, however, find that asexuality doesn't quite fit into the box of a traditional sexual orientation and therefore a broader descriptive definition may be required.

Regarding asexuals who have sexual desire but who do not desire partnered sex, from what I've read there's probably a number of different explanations. For example, some might be autochorissexuals, others may have a sex drive that's to low to provide sufficient motivation, while others may be dissuaded by external factors. Therefore, it's not as simple as saying there's an innate lack of desire for partnered sex, and I haven't been able to find any support for that in the literature.

In addition, I must admit that I am somewhat puzzled by continued resistance to an attraction-based model that has widespread support in psychology, sociology, and law. I doubt that resistance has much of a chance of making headway. And I don't have much more to say on this issue which I haven't written in more detail elsewhere.

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

 

You have both misinterpreted me on this point. I am saying that by a desire-based model of sexual orientations, that is the absurd conclusion you would get. That is why you need an attraction-based model. Objectum sexuals are attracted to objects, whereas typically people who use sex toys are not, although they desire to be sexual with those objects.

 

No, I think we interpreted you correctly, your analogy simply makes no sense. What does objectum-sexuality have to do with anything here? As @Laurann stated above (much more articulately than I did, thank you), the comparison is nonsensical and offensive. People who use sex toys are not objectum-sexual, and objectum-sexuality entails a far deeper relationship with their objects than tools to reach orgasm. It is a whole other thing that does not even belong in this discussion.


(And even if it did - I still question how you think a desire-based model could possibly mean 'sex with a person you're not attracted to means you're asexual' while 'sex with an object means you must be attracted to that object'.)


My only conclusion is that somehow, despite the multitude of threads on this subject that you've participated in - and started, no less - you still don't understand what the desire-based model actually means. Here's how I explain it.

 

Attraction is what draws your attention/interest to something, whether it be sexual/romantic/platonic/what have you. Desire, on the other hand, is the will to act on that attraction. When it comes to sexual attraction/desire, these two things often go hand in hand for sexual people, but not always and each one can be felt without the other.


For example, desire without attraction would be the person who just wants sex, doesn't care who with so long as they get off, and hooks up with whoever happens to be available. Like being hungry and not caring what food you get so long as it fills you.


Attraction without desire would be someone who sees someone they think is quite good looking but lacks the motivation to actually pursue them. Like seeing a food that looks delicious but meh, you're not in the mood. Does it look good? Sure. Do you want any? Not really.


And to be clear, since there seems to be some confusion, the desire-based model states a lack of desire for partnered sex, not sexual desire full-stop. Masturbation and libido have fuck-all (hah, pun) to do with it.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

And I don't have much more to say on this issue which I haven't written in more detail elsewhere.

If you're out of things to say, maybe stop starting the same debate over and over with no new insights.

 

 

I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this again. Gods help me.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous

And now that I'm in this, I probably ought to post my thoughts on the topic so I'm not just threadjacking, lol.


@Éowyn21, I agree with the core of what you're saying but not every detail. As others have said, sexual desire and attraction are indeed two different things and one does not inherently mean the other. I believe in the 'asexual means does not experience sexual attraction' definition in the spirit in which it was originally intended, however given how warped that has become over time, I much prefer the desire-based one.

 

Also, I wish you would stop using the word 'hypersexual' to mean 'pursues a lot of partnered sex', because that's not what hypersexuality means. Rather, it refers to a particularly high libido and/or preoccupation with sex and sexual material. For some this does mean being very sexually active with others (and the term can be used synonymously with sex addiction) but it also can refer to excess masturbation and porn addiction. One can be hypersexual and still only do the solo-lovin'!

 

All the same, I don't think it is impossible that an asexual sex addict could exist, as any addiction can be born of trauma or destructive coping methods. I'm sure it would be a rare thing to happen but it's interesting to think about.

 

In any case, yes, I do agree that the current definition of asexual is absurdly broad and I do have trouble wrapping my head around the concept of desiring partnered sex and still IDing as asexual.

 

 

 

(Also, uh, I am so used to these threads being in the Hot Box and I just realized this is not. If I said anything too harshly, I apologize.)

 

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

 

No, I think we interpreted you correctly, your analogy simply makes no sense. What does objectum-sexuality have to do with anything here? As @Laurann stated above (much more articulately than I did, thank you), the comparison is nonsensical and offensive. People who use sex toys are not objectum-sexual, and objectum-sexuality entails a far deeper relationship with their objects than tools to reach orgasm. It is a whole other thing that does not even belong in this discussion.

(And even if it did - I still question how you think a desire-based model could possibly mean 'sex with a person you're not attracted to means you're asexual' while 'sex with an object means you must be attracted to that object'.)

No, you are grossly misinterpreting what I said. Someone who desires to use an object (such as a sex toy) to affect states of physical arousal is desiring to be sexual with that object. On the other hand, an objectum sexual is sexually attracted to objects, and on the basis of that attraction develops sexual desires towards that object. Thus, the presence or absence of sexual attraction is how these cases are distinguished. But if you use a desire-based model, then you would not be able to distinguish them. Hence, why I reject the desire-based model. I do not believe that people who use sex toys are objectum sexuals. That was the whole point of the comparison in the first place. I am not sure how much more clear I can be on that point. I never said that anyone who desires to be sexual with an object is sexually attracted to that object. That would be ridiculous. My argument was the exact opposite.
 

1 hour ago, Alejandrogynous said:

My only conclusion is that somehow, despite the multitude of threads on this subject that you've participated in - and started, no less - you still don't understand what the desire-based model actually means. Here's how I explain it.

 

Attraction is what draws your attention/interest to something, whether it be sexual/romantic/platonic/what have you. Desire, on the other hand, is the will to act on that attraction. When it comes to sexual attraction/desire, these two things often go hand in hand for sexual people, but not always and each one can be felt without the other.


For example, desire without attraction would be the person who just wants sex, doesn't care who with so long as they get off, and hooks up with whoever happens to be available. Like being hungry and not caring what food you get so long as it fills you.


Attraction without desire would be someone who sees someone they think is quite good looking but lacks the motivation to actually pursue them. Like seeing a food that looks delicious but meh, you're not in the mood. Does it look good? Sure. Do you want any? Not really.


And to be clear, since there seems to be some confusion, the desire-based model states a lack of desire for partnered sex, not sexual desire full-stop. Masturbation and libido have fuck-all (hah, pun) to do with it.

The problem is that there's no support in the psychological literature for a desire for partnered sex as separate from sexual desire, and no one defines sexual orientations in that way. It is odd that you're claiming that I don't understand how attraction and desire models work, and yet you have a view that has zero scientific support and zero legal support. With respect, do you ever wonder why your view is so unpopular among people who get paid to research, write, and teach about asexuality and sexual orientations? Why do you think they all follow an attraction-based model? And if you really can offer something better, then why not try your luck with an academic publisher? I don't understand why, if desire-only supporters really think they have an argument that will refute the current scientific paradigm on sexual orientations, they don't take advantage of it to get famous. That, in my view, is the most telling argument against their position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pramana I am using a much narrower definition of desire here, and I feel like I'm not the only one. What I mean when I say sexual desire is much closer to what you mean when you say sexual attraction than what you mean when you say sexual desire. (I'm not saying they're the same thing). I don't think wanting to use an object as a tool counts as sexual desire towards that object. The way I use these words (which is how they're generally used in this community), wanting sex and desiring it are not the same thing. You can want sex for a ton of different reasons. You can want sex without desiring it. Think of an asexual wanting to have children, or an insecure asexual wanting to raise self-esteem through sex (not a good idea in my opinion, but hey I'm sure there's people who do that).

 

You refusing to understand what we mean when we say sexual desire, and using your own ideas of what sexual desire is instead, is not helping anyone in this discussion.

 

Trigger warning: rape.

Spoiler

I don't think wanting to use an object as a tool, rather than as a partner in sex, is sexual desire. I also don't think wanting to use a person as a tool, rather than as a partner, is sexual desire. Did you know that most men who rape other men are straight? That's because rape isn't about attraction or desire. It's about power, control and domination. It's about using a person as a tool. 

 

I don't think the definition of sexual desire is debated enough here. People just assume they're talking about the same thing, but it's obvious to me that you and I are talking about vastly different things. I don't know what the exact definition of sexual desire in the context of a definition for asexuality should be, but I think it should have to do with intimacy. As far as I know, asexuals are not able to directly get intimacy from sex the way sexuals are.

 

About academia. Asexuality hasn't been studied for long, and for most orientations it doesn't make much sense to separate attraction from desire, since the two always occur together. You would never hear someone say "I experience sexual attraction towards men, but I only experience sexual desire towards women." That makes no sense. Only asexuals salami-slice attraction/desire/drive this much. That's why I think it's too early to use this argument to shut down any further debate. 

 

4 hours ago, Pramana said:

I don't understand why, if desire-only supporters really think they have an argument that will refute the current scientific paradigm on sexual orientations, they don't take advantage of it to get famous.

This assumes that we're in a position where we're able to do that. I'm sorry, but I don't have a doctorate degree and a permission to publish in scientific journals in this field. Academia is not exactly as accessible as you make it out to be.

 

In the case of sexual orientations, academia is used to describe people's experiences. As was stated before, this is not an exact science where you can cut people's brains open and see their orientation. Academia fully relies on how people describe their feelings and on which words people tend to use in doing that. Academia follows experience, it doesn't dictate it.

 

What we're trying to do here, is to collectively describe the difference in experiences between asexuality and sexuality. It makes no sense to have academic descriptions of other orientations dictate how we're allowed to express our experiences. Academia should (and up to now, largely does) follow asexual discourse, without imposing its own will on that discourse. Discourse is subject to change as people's understanding of themselves deepens and changes, and I think it's nonsensical to use academia to say that that's not allowed, since academia should follow experience, not the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Éowyn21 said:

Although, I'm somewhat unsure about this policy of not being allowed to tell someone they don't fit the definition of what it means to asexual. I mean if we provide an official definition, we are effectively telling these people they are not asexual.

If someone says "I'm asexual because I love having sex all the time with everyone yay!" then I think our response should be "That's not what the word asexuality means, it means blabla", but I don't think that's the same thing as telling them "You are not asexual." All we can do is explain what asexuality is, but we can never assess whether someone fits that definition, because we will simply never have enough information on that person. We don't know why they love having sex all the time. Maybe it's perfectly reasonable for them to think of themselves as asexual. 

 

In my experience people either make a whole lot of sense when they explain why they identify as asexual or ace spectrum even though they may not completely fit the definition, or they just misunderstood what words like 'sexual attraction' or 'sexual desire' mean. Explaining these words will solve the problem for that second group. Telling people they're not asexual may be accurate for that second group, but rather than solving problems it will create new problems for that first group.

 

So the point is, providing a definition is not the same as applying that definition to someone's life. The only one who's allowed to apply a definition to their life is themselves.

Providing a definition concerns the world of ideas, applying it concerns the real empirical world.

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

You would never hear someone say "I experience sexual attraction towards men, but I only experience sexual desire towards women." That makes no sense. Only asexuals salami-slice attraction/desire/drive this much. That's why I think it's too early to use this argument to shut down any further debate.

 

Sexual desire towards women is sexual attraction towards women. This is not the point of the thread; it's about sexual desire towards partnered sexual activities.

Quote

I also don't think wanting to use a person as a tool, rather than as a partner, is sexual desire.

That is sexual desire. "Sexual desire can be defined as a feeling that includes wanting to have a sexual experience [...]" (Bogaert). This is what is argued here but just in more diplomatic terms. The partner is mostly there because you can't engage in partnered sexual activities without a partner. Obviously, unlike in your example, people discuss it in terms of consensual activities, and your partner may be someone you are romantically attracted to.

 

Quote

You refusing to understand what we mean when we say sexual desire, and using your own ideas of what sexual desire is instead, is not helping anyone in this discussion.

No, you are mistaken thinking that your understanding of sexual desire is universally acknowledged by the desire-based people (mostly because your definition is wrong.) It has been made clear repeatedly that, according to them/you, cupiosexuals are not asexuals. Cupiosexuals desire a sexual relationship without feeling sexual desire to their partner but rather to the act of sex i.e. using the partner as "a tool."

 

These threads will never conclude because people can't seem to follow the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@aceidk I'd like you to stop ending your posts in passive aggressive one-liners. It escalates the tension and creates a hostile atmosphere. I don't want to fight. I want to have a productive discussion. I hope this didn't come off as mean. I'm just trying to deescalate the situation without stepping on anyone's toes.

This is what I mean:

Spoiler
On 6/25/2017 at 1:29 AM, aceidk said:

I guess these threads continue to be based on misreading evidence, cherrypicking the same ambiguous paragraph from Understanding Asexuality, and ignoring AVEN's wiki definition in favour of the FAQ one.

These threads will never conclude because people can't seem to follow the discussion.

Was it really necessary to create a new account just to continue promoting the same agenda without any new evidence to support this position?

 

 

1 hour ago, aceidk said:

No, you are mistaken thinking that your understanding of sexual desire is universally acknowledged by the desire-based people (mostly because your definition is wrong.)

I said this:

3 hours ago, Laurann said:

I don't think the definition of sexual desire is debated enough here. People just assume they're talking about the same thing, but it's obvious to me that you and I are talking about vastly different things. I don't know what the exact definition of sexual desire in the context of a definition for asexuality should be, but I think it should have to do with intimacy.

That means I would like to discuss sexual desire and what it means to different people in more detail. Nowhere did I state that the way I use that word is the way that all people or even all desirists should use the word.This paragraph was intended to be a prompt for further discussion. I didn't even provide a definition.

 

I said that in the way I use the word, wanting to use a person or an object as a tool to get sexual pleasure out of does not count as sexual desire. That is my opinion. That is the type of feeling I'm trying to talk about. The type of feeling I mean to convey by using the word sexual desire is not the same type of feeling you mean when you use that word. I think it's important to talk about the differences in what people mean with that word if we're ever going to get to a conclusion. If everyone just insists on their own meaning of the word we'll never get anywhere. That way we'll just be unintentionally straw-manning each other until the end of eternity. In the end it's not the word that matters, but the concepts that we're trying to convey through them. 

 

1 hour ago, aceidk said:

Sexual desire towards women is sexual attraction towards women.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to have it, but that's not universally acknowledged by desirists either. In my opinion there is a difference between these two concepts, though they are related and one causes the other. This has already been discussed and I don't want to repeat this any more than is necessary.

 

1 hour ago, aceidk said:

It has been made clear repeatedly that, according to them/you, cupiosexuals are not asexuals.

As far as I know, a cupiosexual is a person who experiences sexual desire in a more general sense, but does not feel sexual attraction to specific people. That's how I've seen that being defined most commonly. Are we on the same page up to that point? 

 

If we then define asexuality as a lack of desire, then it becomes clear that these two definitions are incompatible, an oxymoron. However, I would not ever use this against specific cupiosexuals. I don't know their story. I don't know how they define their words. If they feel their experiences are more in line with those of an asexual, they are free to identify as such, even though by my definitions of these words cupiosexuality and asexuality are incompatible.

 

1 hour ago, aceidk said:

Cupiosexuals desire a sexual relationship without feeling sexual desire to their partner but rather to the act of sex i.e. using the partner as "a tool."

I'm sure that differs from cupiosexual to cupiosexual. But if that's your definition of cupiosexual, that's good for you. I'd like to debate you on that, but in order to do that we first need to agree, or at least understand each other's take, on what we mean with words like sexual desire.

So, what exactly do you mean with that word? Please explain?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...