Jump to content

Asexuality needs a narrower standard of definition


Éowyn21

Recommended Posts

swirl_of_blue
4 hours ago, Pramana said:

What do you mean by sharing one's sexuality with others? If you watch pornography and masturbate, it seems like you're expressing sexual desire for the people you're viewing and you find them attractive. If not, why would you watch it?

I'm not the OP, but someone who occasionally watches porn and masturbates to it. And I'm sure as hell not attracted to the people in it and would certainly prefer not to have to see the people in their entirety! If the camera was just centered on the genitals and nothing else was shown I would be a lot happier, as seeing the people's bodies and especially their faces really turns me off and makes it hard to concentrate. Sure, there can be times when I find an actor/actress especially UNattractive, but I have never found one attractive, really. I watch purely because I can see things that are "mechanically" causing pleasure to the people having sex and I can somehow project the physical sensations onto myself easier if I can see it. I don't care about the act of sex, just the physical sensations. And I would never want to take part myself, just the thought is very uncomfortable (especially since I know that sex doesn't feel as good as it looks like it feels, having tried several dozen times).

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

Also, I have no idea what you're talking about here. I have never heard of anyone just looking at people and wanting to have sex with them right then and there. Usually, a lot of other factors have to be in place before someone actually wants to have sex with another person.

I have. Several times. You don't know many people. 

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

It is widely accepted that a lesbian can desire sex with men and still be a lesbian.  

 

Widely accepted by who? If a lesbian girl start desiring sex with men almost everybody will think she is bisexual. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

@Éowyn21; I like you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just like Jughead said:

@Éowyn21 Did I miss an election or did you appoint yourself to the position of asexual police officer?

You missed the election. Honestly, I'm not trying to police anyone, I'm just stating what I believe to be true. 

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

Sexual attraction is sexual desire. It is not possible to experience sexual desire without attraction, because attraction is implicit in what it means to have sexual desire. The two are entangled together. You can't say "I have a desire to have sex with this person, but I'm not sexually attracted to him/her". It's like saying "I have a desire to eat chocolate, but chocolate is not appealing to me". Or "drinking liquor is not appealing to me, but I have a desire to get drunk". It makes absolutely no sense. 

I'm tired of people twisting the meaning of sexual attraction, just so they can have a label for themselves. If someone claims they are asexual, yet actively seeks and desires sex, then their supposed  identity as an asexual is completely inconsequential and pointless. It makes defining asexuality more confusing than necessary, and these so called "hypersexual asexuals" take up room from people who are an actual minority and need representation.

This is simply wrong. Every psychologist I've read believes that people can desire sex with people they're not attracted to. What about people who were married and had children in a heterosexual relationship and then found out they were gay? Surely they desired heterosexual sex in the past, despite being gay. Plus, it's pretty common for sexual people to desire sex with people they're not attracted to, since sexual desires can be caused by a variety of different things.

I've known plenty of people who hated the taste of alcohol, but liked getting drunk, while others liked both the flavour and the getting drunk part. I don't understand why you don't think it's possible to distinguish those two things. 

 

10 hours ago, Éowyn21 said:

When I talk about an individual not "wanting to share their sexuality", I mean not wanting to have sex with others. You can experience sexual arousal without having a desire to express that arousal through sexual relations with other people.  Moreover,  often when asexual people watch porn, they're watching in a third person POV  and do not desire to have sex with the people they're watching. They don't want to participate, they're just turned on by what they're seeing.  Bogaerts described it as autocorisexual. It's also calmed voyerism.

 

As for prison rape, well that's rape which is about violence not necessarily sexual attraction/desire. If the acts are consensual as in both participants desire to have sex with each other, then I would not  consider them to be 100% heterosexual, I don't think others would either. It's understandable since sexuality is on sprectrum. 

Some asexuals who watch pornography and masturbate are autochorissexuals, and others may not fully connect themselves to the activities, but what about those asexuals who watch pornography in a manner analogous to sexual people, but they don't wish to be sexual due to external factors ( for example, maybe they think the social effort required would be too much work). Would you consider that group to be asexual?

As for your analysis of the prison example, it is contra standard to what is commonly accepted in psychology. And on that point, what are your sources for any of this? If you want to advocate a narrower definition of asexuality and thus tell some people that they're not asexual, it seems like you should at least have some very good sources and evidence to support your view. However, you have not provided any. In fact, the comments you've made in this thread are all contrary to the body of published psychology and sociology on the topic, as well as to jurisprudence concerning sexual orientations and even human rights laws passed to protect asexuals. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to oppose inclusive human rights principles based on self-identification and attraction-based models of sexual orientation. Nor do I see that there's any realistic chance of being successful (kind of hard to go against what is already established law in some American jurisdictions).

I agree that the concept of sex-favourable and hypersexual asexuals is counterintuitive, but it makes sense given well established psychological principles. Most likely, where people don't find anyone attractive, they will be less likely to desire partnered sex, so it's predicable that there would be fewer sex-favourable asexuals and of those very few would be hypersexuals, and I'm not sure how many hypersexual asexuals would have a motivation to call themselves asexual. Nevertheless, I don't care if they choose to do so. I don't understand why you would care, what your problem is with this? Furthermore, there appears to be a number of sex-favourable asexuals active in the asexual community, so it seems to me that people have already decided this issue. Again, why would you want to roll back inclusiveness? Who are you to say who's asexual and who's not? And as far as I can tell, sex-favourable asexuals are encompassed by legal definitions of sexual orientations and asexuality, and that to me is the end of the matter.

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

This is simply wrong. Every psychologist I've read believes that people can desire sex with people they're not attracted to. What about people who were married and had children in a heterosexual relationship and then found out they were gay? Surely they desired heterosexual sex in the past, despite being gay. Plus, it's pretty common for sexual people to desire sex with people they're not attracted to, since sexual desires can be caused by a variety of different things.

I've known plenty of people who hated the taste of alcohol, but liked getting drunk, while others liked both the flavour and the getting drunk part. I don't understand why you don't think it's possible to distinguish those two things. 

 

Some asexuals who watch pornography and masturbate are autochorissexuals, and others may not fully connect themselves to the activities, but what about those asexuals who watch pornography in a manner analogous to sexual people, but they don't wish to be sexual due to external factors ( for example, maybe they think the social effort required would be too much work). Would you consider that group to be asexual?

As for your analysis of the prison example, it is contra standard to what is commonly accepted in psychology. And on that point, what are your sources for any of this? If you want to advocate a narrower defitnon of asexuality and thus tell some people that they're not asexual, it seems like you should at least have some very good sources and evidence to support your view. However, you have not provided any. In fact, the comments you've made in this thread are all contrary to the body of published psychology and sociology on the topic, as well as to jurisprudence concerning sexual orientations and even human rights laws passed to protect asexuals. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to oppose inclusive human rights principles based on self-identification and attraction-based models of sexual orientation. Nor do I see that there's any realistic chance of being successful (kind of hard to go against what is already established law in some American jurisdictions).

I agree that the concept of sex-favourable and hypersexual asexuals is counterintuitive, but it makes sense given well established psychological principles. Most likely, where people don't find anyone attractive, they will be less likely to desire partnered sex, so it's predicable that there would be fewer sex-favourable asexuals and of those very few would be hypersexuals, and I'm not sure how many hypersexual asexuals would have a motivation to call themselves asexual. Nevertheless, I don't care if they choose to do so. I don't understand why you would care, what your problem is with this? Furthermore, there appears to be a number of sex-favourable asexuals active in the asexual community, so it seems to me that people have already decided this issue. Again, why would you want to roll back inclusiveness? Who are you to say who's asexual and who's not? And as far as I can tell, sex-favourable asexuals are encompassed by legal definitions of sexual orientations and asexuality, and that to me is the end of the matter.

It depends on the reason they were in the heterosexual relationship in the first place. If they were in it because they wanted to appear normal to society and surpress their homosexuality, then that make sense. If they were in it because they desired sex with the opposite sex, then they cannot be considered gay. Perhaps bisexual or pansexual, but you cannot say "I was born gay, yet I have desired sex with opposite sex for the sake of it". Also, I'm not sure what psychologists you are getting this information from. Why do you need to go to "scholarly articles" that probably have other articles that refute them to back up your postion, when AVEN already has a clear definition of what sexual attraction is? 

 

I thought I made it fairly clear why I'm against such a broad definition of asexuality. Because if we include these so-called "asexuals who regularly desire sex", under the definition of asexuality, then the concept of asexuality becomes utterly meaningless and absurd. It is counter -productive to be inclusive for the sake of being inclusive. Political correctness should not overrule truth and common sense. I will not affirm an individual's claim of asexuality if they're behavior and innate desires completely contradict what is means to be asexual. Just like for instance, I won't affirm an individual's claim of being a Christian if both their beliefs and actions directly contradict what it means to be a Christian. Actions speak louder than words, and no one's under an obligation to accept a person's claim of identity as true solely because of that person's feelings, more specifically their need to have a special little label to define themselves despite not actually fitting the label whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ciri said:

Going to point out that sex favourable Asexuals also need visibility and respresentation too.

I'm sorry but I honestly don't see why they need or should have representation within the asexual community. If an individual is  "asexual, yet regularly desires sex", then that label of asexuality becomes inconsequential. It defeats the point of asexuality. It's like saying "I'm 100% gay and therefore belong to the LGBT+ community, yet I only seek and desire sexual relationships with the opposite sex". It's logically incoherent. This person would  appear heterosexual to society, not because they're faking it, but because they are indeed heterosexual.

 

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

Going to point out that sex favourable Asexuals also need visibility and respresentation too.

 

2 minutes ago, Éowyn21 said:

I'm sorry but U honestly don't see why  within asexual community they need or should have representation within the asexual community. If an individual is  "asexual, yet regularly desire sex", then that label of asexuality becomes nconsequential. There's no point of labeling yourself that way. It's like saying "I'm 100% gay and therefore belong to the LGBT+ community, yet I only seek and desire sexual relationships with the opposite sex". It's logically incoherent. This person would  appear heterosexual to society not because they're faking it, but because they are indeed heterosexual.

 

Isn't the definition for sex-favourable asexuality mostly "Doesn't desire sex and could happily go without, but can enjoy it when/if it happens"? A person could thus be sex-favourable ace even if they don't seek out sex, and many sex-favourables would live without sex (as they don't desire it).

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

. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to oppose inclusive human rights principles based on self-identification and attraction-based models of sexual orientation. Nor do I see that there's any realistic chance of being successful (kind of hard to go against what is already established law in some American jurisdictions).


I have never even heard of asexuals being included under laws. If so it's not the laws that are the problem, it's the interpretation.  People are changing the meaning of sexual attraction to contrive themselves into a minority orientation. Remember, I stated in the OP that the official AVEN defintion of asexuality is clear enough to me. Unfortunately, there are people who want to twist what it means to experimene sexual attraction, to label themselves as asexual. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, swirl_of_blue said:

 

Isn't the definition for sex-favourable asexuality mostly "Doesn't desire sex and could happily go without, but can enjoy it when/if it happens"? A person could thus be sex-favourable ace even if they don't seek out sex, and many sex-favourables would live without sex (as they don't desire it).

That's basically right yes. The explanation I use is:

 

"A person who does not experience sexual attraction and does not have the intrinsic desire to seek out partnered sex. These people can enjoy sex and have pleasurable experiences, accepting it if the opportunity comes along. However, never having sex again would not bother them. Sometimes, having repeated sexual experiences can, although pleasent, become more sex repulsed the more sex they have. Having sex is as unnatural for them as other Asexuals."

 

Sex favourable Asexuals exist in the same way sex repulsed sexual people exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swirl_of_blue said:

 

Isn't the definition for sex-favourable asexuality mostly "Doesn't desire sex and could happily go without, but can enjoy it when/if it happens"? A person could thus be sex-favourable ace even if they don't seek out sex, and many sex-favourables would live without sex (as they don't desire it).

Is it kind of hard to say that people want to have sex for intrinsic goods but don't desire it. Potentially, one could lack sexual desire in the sense of not having a libido or sex drive, but still enjoy sex due to pleasurable feelings produced by affecting states of physical arousal. Or, one could have a sex drive (as in wanting to masturbate and perhaps fantasizing, etc) while lacking sexual attraction to people, but still be capable of enjoying partnered sex and use it as a way to address their sex drive. Likely, both would lack the motivation to actively seek out partnered sex on account of not finding anyone attractive or appealing, but theoretically that wouldn't necessarily always be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, swirl_of_blue said:

 

Isn't the definition for sex-favourable asexuality mostly "Doesn't desire sex and could happily go without, but can enjoy it when/if it happens"? A person could thus be sex-favourable ace even if they don't seek out sex, and many sex-favourables would live without sex (as they don't desire it).

I'm honestly not sure whether I would consider such people asexual. If they would actually prefer to have sex than not if approached with the opportunity, then what's the point of those "sex-fabvorables" labeling themselves as asexual? Based on what you're saying, it seems like they don't go looking for sex as an agent, yet if someone were to approach them for a sexual encounter, they would gladly accept. That's still sounds like a sexual being to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuals can have sex to please their partners and even enjoy certain aspects of it but they can not desire it. If they desired it they would be sexual. If you don't find people attractive yet still desire sex your feelings are not illegitimate they just aren't asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Éowyn21 said:

I have never even heard of asexuals being included under laws. If so it's not the laws that are the problem, it's the interpretation.  People are changing the meaning of sexual attraction to contrive themselves into a minority orientation. Remember, I stated in the OP that the official AVEN defintion of asexuality is clear enough to me. Unfortunately, there are people who want to twist what it means to experimene sexual attraction, to label themselves as asexual. 

In that case, I would point you to this thread, which discusses human rights laws pertaining to asexuals. Those laws follow attraction-based and self-identification based principles. I would add that the law of evidence requires that courts follow scientific evidence in this regard. If you're sceptical about scholarly articles, then you won't get very far trying to make arguments in a human rights legal framework.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Asexuals can have sex to please their partners and even enjoy certain aspects of it but they can not desire it. If they desired it they would be sexual. If you don't find people attractive yet still desire sex your feelings are not illegitimate they just aren't asexual.

I completely agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
swirl_of_blue
1 minute ago, Éowyn21 said:

I'm honestly not sure whether I would consider such people asexual. If they would actually prefer to have sex than not if approached with the opportunity, then what's the point of that person labeling themselves as asexual? Based on what you're saying, it eems like they don't go looking for sex as an agent, yet if someone were to approach them for a sexual encounter, they would gladly accept. That's still sounds like a sexual being to me.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on the asexuality definition at all, as I've seen that just thinking of the word "definition" opens such a huge can of worms that if there's one thing that is going to tear this community apart, it is the definition. Personally I'm afraid to use the label "asexual", though I have never wanted to have sex and have never enjoyed it (I have been in relationships with sexuals), and if I have to choose between sex or no sex I will always choose no. But if I having sex would be the thing I need to keep a relationship together I would do anything my partner wanted, even if I hated it. I feel I'm not repulsed enough to count as ace by the stricter definitions, and so personally it's easier to just use "gray ace".

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, sexuality should be about who you like, not how you like. It should mention the demographic (based on gender/biological sex) that you like, first and foremost. (Or in the case of aces, the fact that you like anyone). I'm using "like" as synonymous with "experience sexual attraction/seek out sexual experiences with" and so on.

 

Terms such as "demi", "cupio", et cetera, can be used as prefixes for your sexuality if you so desire, e.g. "Demiheterosexual", but they make it much harder to draw the line between what's appropriate and what's a "made-up" term. The important part of sexuality, as it's defined, is the part I've mentioned in the first paragraph.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Asexuals can have sex to please their partners and even enjoy certain aspects of it but they can not desire it. If they desired it they would be sexual. If you don't find people attractive yet still desire sex your feelings are not illegitimate they just aren't asexual.

To the best of my knowledge, asexuality is defined as a lack of sexual attraction in every single academic publication on the topic. It is pretty hard to advance a plausible argument against the academic consensus regarding how asexuality and sexuality orientations work. There's also the fact that sex-favourable asexuals already have human rights protections as asexuals in some jurisdictions, because legislators and courts follow academics on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swirl_of_blue said:

Personally, I don't have an opinion on the asexuality definition at all, as I've seen that just thinking of the word "definition" opens such a huge can of worms that if there's one thing that is going to tear this community apart, it is the definition. Personally I'm afraid to use the label "asexual", though I have never wanted to have sex and have never enjoyed it (I have been in relationships with sexuals), and if I have to choose between sex or no sex I will always choose no. But if I having sex would be the thing I need to keep a relationship together I would do anything my partner wanted, even if I hated it. I feel I'm not repulsed enough to count as ace by the stricter definitions, and so personally it's easier to just use "gray ace".

If you would always choose not to have sex if it didn't negatively impact others that sounds pretty asexual to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Éowyn21 said:

I'm honestly not sure whether I would consider such people asexual. If they would actually prefer to have sex than not if approached with the opportunity, then what's the point of those "sex-fabvorables" labeling themselves as asexual? Based on what you're saying, it seems  like they don't go looking for sex as an agent, yet if someone were to approach them for a sexual encounter, they would gladly accept. That's still sounds like a sexual being to me.

Why does it matter who you would consider asexual? I'm making an argument based on who psychologists, sociologists, and the judicial system would consider asexual. For all intents and purposes, I regard that as definitive.

If you don't understand the point of sex-favourable asexuals identifying as asexuals, then perhaps you should ask them. Presumably they've decided to join the community for a reason. Your argument here seems to boil down to an attitude whereby you just don't understand certain types of asexuals. With respect, that's a pretty weak form of argument.

At the end of the day, what will have impact is what psychologists, sociologists, and laws/courts say on the matter. Hence, I don't see any point in trying to argue against what is the consensus among those three sources.

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


If you don't understand the point of sex-favourable asexuals identifying as asexuals, then perhaps you should ask them. Presumably they've decided to join the community for a reason.

My answer to this question is simply: Because I am asexual.

 

I am not sexually attracted to anybody of any gender. I'm not a sexual person.

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

Why does it matter who you would consider asexual? I'm making an argument based on who psychologists, sociologists, and the judicial system would consider asexual. I For all intents and purposes, I regard that as definitive.

If you don't understand the point of sex-favourable asexuals identifying as asexuals, then perhaps you should ask them. Presumably they've decided to join the community for a reason. Your argument here seems to boil down to an attitude whereby you just don't understand certain types of asexuals. With respect, that's a pretty weak form of argument.

At the end of the day, what will have impact is what psychologists, sociologists, and laws/courts say on the matter. Hence, I don't see any point in trying to argue against what is the consensus among those three sources.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hippygeek78
1 hour ago, Éowyn21 said:

AVEN already has a clear definition of what sexual attraction is

 

For someone who keeps insisting that AVEN's definition backs you up here, you don't seem to have a clue about their actual stance on the subject.

 

From "A message about AVEN's values" that Ciri linked to on page 1:

 

Quote

AVEN uses a “lack of sexual attraction” definition as default, but there is no requirement every member has to agree with this. There are different views on this even within the AVEN staff as well as the larger member-base, and that’s fine. However, when it comes to labelling individuals, a line is drawn. It is our duty as an organization to strongly discourage the assignment of sexual, romantic or gender-identity by any means other than self-identification.

 

[...]

 

[AVEN] will continue to support the right of people to identify as they choose in regards to their sexual orientation and their gender identity

 

You are of course entitled to your own personal opinion, but when you start labelling others according to those opinions, you are most certainly crossing a line that AVEN is 100% clear about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hippygeek78 said:

 

For someone who keeps insisting that AVEN's definition backs you up here, you don't seem to have a clue about their actual stance on the subject.

 

From "A message about AVEN's values" that Ciri linked to on page 1:

 

 

You are of course entitled to your own personal opinion, but when you start labelling others according to those opinions, you are most certainly crossing a line that AVEN is 100% clear about.

I couldn't care less about what a BOD member says about in a post that contradicts the official AVEN definitions because they want to pursue an agenda . This is all about excessive political correctness and inclusivity for the mere sake of inclusivity. I'm not under any obligation to affirm someone's identity  simply because they claim to be that identity when their own words utterly contradict what it means to be possess that indenity. What's ridiculous is that this would not be a debate in other communities. No one would claim to be gay, yet have an exclusive desire for sexual relationships with the opposite sex because that's logically incoherent .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Scottthespy
22 hours ago, Confusion 0 said:

Any conversation involving orientation, or "hot" celebrities, etc. get very awkward and complicated if I don't explain my sexuality to them. It does play a part in my life, espeically in social situations where it's assumed everyone is straight. I simply cannot relate to what they're talking about, and it's painfully obvious to everyone. I have to tell them eventually or they'll think I'm gay or something.

I don't see how that's complicated. Just because some one is conventionally attractive doesn't mean every one who's attracted to the gender of that person MUST be attracted to them. Those celebrities just don't do it for you, end of story. "Why not?" I dunno, why does anything YOU don't like not do it for YOU? Its just how I am. 

 

Just because a person wants sex doesn't mean they're going to want it with EVERY one. Saying that you enjoying sex but not finding celebrities attractive is complicated sounds kind of like you're expecting other people to be confused or astounded by something that's not very confusing or astounding. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hippygeek78
1 hour ago, Éowyn21 said:

I couldn't care less about what a BOD member says about in a post that contradicts the official AVEN definitions

Having a policy of "don't label people" does not contradict any definitions whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hippygeek78 said:

Having a policy of "don't label people" does not contradict any definitions whatsoever.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "not labeling people". People have the ability to  label themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't actually mean I'm going to affirm the label they have chosen if they clearly do not fit the definition of what is means to be that label. For instance, I'm not going to to believe someone is atheist if they also claim to believe in a deity and worship it. 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, as if a person is either asexual or sexual based on their opinion on what asexuality and sexuality is... even if that opinion is clearly false. There are clear standards that these so called "hypersexual asexuals" do not meet simply by the essence of what it means to be "hypersexual" versus what it means to be "asexual".  That is a nonsensical oxymoron.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...