Jump to content

Asexuality needs a narrower standard of definition


Éowyn21

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Scottthespy said:

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. 

This exactly. Not being attracted to conventionally attractive people is not asexuality, and I'm not really sure why there should be a sepatre indenity and label for something so inconsequential. 

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

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.

I would just like to point out that every so often psychologists critique and even get rid of past theories. For example, Kinsey's ideas have been modified, Piaget's stages of development were proven to underestimate children, and hardly any one uses Kohlberg's stages of moral development anymore because they are so Euro-centric. (I won't even go into the cross-cultural issues.) I know we should follow academic literature....it's a good place to develop an educated opinion, however psychology is not the objective science it believes/portrays itself to be. I could go on and on about why psychology presents itself as it does now, but basically, it is not the one and only truth. I find myself agreeing with you more and more on certain issues, however, I still hold the belief that psychology might not be entirely right on these sexual orientation issues. After all, we still have the problem of most psychologists being white and heterosexual.(not sure about the gender divide) I think it is okay to challenge these ideas. Just because we do not have the resources to go about testing our theories and hypotheses doesn't mean they don't hold any ground. The literature we have has been dictated by psychology's past, which isn't that diverse if we're being honest.

 

3 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 others theories that refute them? Second of all, have you have ever  stopped to 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.

Despite what I wrote to Pramana, I think this is an unproductive way of thinking. Really, our entire reality is constructed of opinions. It is hard to accept, but even our Western science is a product of our culture, so I don't think we can escape using opinions. No one is truly objective, in my opinion. However, I do agree with you on other points. 

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

Despite what I wrote to Pramana, I think this is an unproductive way of thinking. Really, our entire reality is constructed of opinions. It is hard to accept, but even our Western science is a product of our culture, so I don't think we can escape using opinions. No one is truly objective, in my opinion. However, I do agree with you on other points. 

I agree with what you said about psychology changing, but I'm not entirely sure what you're point is here.  How is  what I was saying "unproductive"? I disagree with what you said above  because I believe there are objective truths and there also opinions.... however  that wasn't  what I was talking about in the first place though, so that's why I'm confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad

@Éowyn21 I was saying that there is no objective truth and that it is unproductive to not value opinions.

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

@Éowyn21 I was saying that there is no objective truth and that it is unproductive to not value opinions.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think cupiosexual makes no sense in terms of asexuality, yeah. Asexuals often find difficulty in relationships because they are asexual, and to define someone who actively desires that simply because they aren't sexually attracted to bodies or whatever, doesn't really make much sense. We have a difficult enough time convincing the rest of the world that people who don't want sex aren't in need of fixing, already. (For the life of me I don't see why it's such a hard concept to grasp, but apparently to some other sexual people who aren't me, it is.)

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

I would just like to point out that every so often psychologists critique and even get rid of past theories. For example, Kinsey's ideas have been modified, Piaget's stages of development were proven to underestimate children, and hardly any one uses Kohlberg's stages of moral development anymore because they are so Euro-centric. (I won't even go into the cross-cultural issues.)

I agree that the predominant psychological/sociological view on sexual orientations may change, and if and when that happens then my opinion will change. But until then, I'm going with an attraction-based model.

Beyond that, what's perhaps most decisive for me is that human rights laws follow principles of self-identification and an attraction-based model. It would be absurd to adopt a definition that is narrower than that recognized by human rights law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
neon signs in the night

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.

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

Do you believe Sex Repulsed Sexuals exist?

 

Sure ,idk. You're opinion on sex as an idea  is a different matter from whether or not you desire sex with others. 

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

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 .

As has already been shown, self-identification and sexual attraction-based models of sexual orientations are followed by human rights laws pertaining to sexual orientations, including those pertaining to asexuality. It would be absurd for AVEN to adopt a definition which is less progressive than that reflected by legal instruments already on the books.

Regarding the situation in other communities, the question of sex-favourable asexuals is analogous to the question of transgender people who don't experience dysphoria and who don't wish to transition. I am under the impression that there is a willingness to recognize that there are different types of transexuals with different experiences, and to support self-identification in that instance.

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

I agree that the predominant psychological/sociological view on sexual orientations may change, and if and when that happens then my opinion will change. But until that happens, I'm going with an attraction-based model.

Beyond that, what's perhaps most decisive for me is that human rights laws follow principles of self-identification and an attraction-based model. If would be absurd to adopt a definition that is narrower than that recognized by human rights law.

Since when are laws always correct? Human rights were once only recognized for white males under US law, and slavery was legal as slaves were defined as property and not legally human beings. Also, why do you speak of human rights law as if they are some type of monolith. I wouldn't be surprised if there were laws that define sexual attraction as sexual desire, and/or describe asexual people as not desiring  sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Éowyn21 said:

Since when are laws always correct? Human rights were once only recognized for white males under US law, and slavery was legal as slaves were defined as property and not legally human beings. Also, why do you speak of human rights as if they are some type of monolith. I wouldn't be surprised if there were laws that defin sexual attraction as sexual desire, and/or describe asexual people as not searing sex.

Only we're talking here about progressive laws that expand the scope of human rights, through protecting asexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals against workplace and other forms of discrimination. You're arguing that the protections under those laws should be regressively narrowed in scope. Therefore, you have made a false analogy.

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

Regarding the situation in other communities, the question of sex-favourable asexuals is analogous to the question of transgender people who don't experience dysphoria and who don't wish to transition. I am under the impression that there is a willingness to recognize that there are different types of transexuals with different experiences, and to support self-identification in that instance.

Being transsexual and not wanting to transition is not at all analogous to being a "hypersexual sexual". Also, under the defintion of what it means to be "transgender" and what it means to have "gender dysphoria", I'm sure most if not all transgender people would experience dysphoria. If they didn't how they hell would the know they are transgender? The people who do not wish to transition may not experience dysphoria that is stressful and persistent enough to drive them to that decision or they might be afraid of  what the people around them would think. 

Transgender:

denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

 

Gender dysphoria:

the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.

 

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

I wouldn't be surprised if there were laws that defin sexual attraction as sexual desire, and/or describe asexual people as not searing sex.

6 hours ago, Éowyn21 said:

Why do you need to go to "scholarly articles" that probably have other articles that refute them

You keep making those claims, but your posts continue to be devoid of any references. Was it really necessary to create a new account just to continue promoting the same agenda without any new evidence to support this position?

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

Only we're talking here about progressive laws that expand the scope of human rights, through protecting asexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals against workplace and other forms of discrimination. You're arguing that the protections under those laws should be regressively narrowed in scope. Therefore, you have made a false analogy.

People who actively desire sex, but just aren't attracted to conventionally attractive bodies do not legal protection. That is ridiculous.

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

 

Transgender:

denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

 

Gender dysphoria:

the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

Not wanting to transition is not the same as not expericibg gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is what separates transgender people from cisgendered people. I would since I experience  gender dysphoria, yet do not wish to transition st the moment.

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

People who actively desire sex, but just aren't attracted to attractive bodies do not legal protection. That is ridiculous.

If you think that the current human rights legal framework surrounding sexual orientations and asexuality should be curtailed, that's your prerogative. However, you have to understand that it may not be the most popular view among people in an LGBT+ political/ethical movement. And do you really think that AVEN would want to position itself as taking a more exclusionary position contrary to human rights laws? Surely you can see why that would be problematic.

Here's the one legal paper published on asexuality so far. I doubt you're going to get very far arguing against the Stanford Law Review.

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/02/66_Stan_L_Rev_303_Emens.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, aceidk said:

You keep making those claims, but your posts continue to be devoid of any references. Was it really necessary to create a new account just to continue promoting the same agenda without any new evidence to support this position?

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.

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

If you think that the current human rights legal framework surrounding sexual orientations and asexuality should be curtailed, that's your prerogative. However, you have to understand that it may not be the most popular view among people in an LGBT+ political/ethical movement. And do you really think that AVEN would want to position itself as taking a more exclusionary position contrary to human rights laws? Surely you can see why that would be problematic.

Here's the one legal paper published on asexuality so far. I doubt you're going to get very far arguing against the Stanford Law Review.

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/02/66_Stan_L_Rev_303_Emens.pdf

It claims asexuality has received no legal literature. I'm not sure why you mention asexual as being protected and defined under law then.

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

It claims asexuality has received no legal literature. I'm not sure why you mention asexual as being protected and defined under law then.

May I suggest that it would be a good idea to actually read the whole paper. It explicitly discusses statutory instruments that extend protections to asexuals:

"This Sub- part therefore considers how asexuality made it into New York law, the merits and stakes of including asexuality in antidiscrimination law, and the prospects for further movement in this direction."

"New York’s Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) defines “sexual orientation” as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or asexual- ity, whether actual or perceived.”"

And

"MADISON, WIS., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 39.02(1), 39.03(2)(ii) (2013) (establishing an affirmative action program to “increase the number and representation of affected and/or underrepresented groups” in city employment and contracting, which covers “sexual orientation,” defined as “the sexual or loving attraction to another person or the complete absence thereof to any other person” which “can span a non-static continuum from same-sex attraction at one end to opposite-sex attraction to an absolute lack of attraction to any gender”)"

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 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.

So the focus is on a lack of sexual desire caused by a lack of sexual attraction. That is support for an attraction-based model. Again, it would be a good idea to read the whole paper, and to view it in the context of the broader academic discussion. This is a paper that looks at low levels of sexual desire and behaviour among asexuals, which is what one would predict. However, it does not say that the presence of sexual desire or behaviour disqualifies one from being asexual.

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

If you think that the current human rights legal framework surrounding sexual orientations and asexuality should be curtailed, that's your prerogative. However, you have to understand that it may not be the most popular view among people in an LGBT+ political/ethical movement. And do you really think that AVEN would want to position itself as taking a more exclusionary position contrary to human rights laws? Surely you can see why that would be problematic.

Here's the one legal paper published on asexuality so far. I doubt you're going to get very far arguing against the Stanford Law Review.

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/02/66_Stan_L_Rev_303_Emens.pdf

Not really since many people share my opinion on this  "hypsexual asexual" thing. Second of all,  I'm not sure if most asexuals think it's necessary to officially be protected under the law. It's not like people such as employers are aware whether or not you desire sex. It could be possible for asexuals to be discriminated against under certain circumstances, but it seems unlikely. I don't have a stance on this, but you act as if all asexuals want to be be included under the law. 

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

However, it does not say that the presence of sexual desire or behaviour disqualifies one from being asexual.

I'm positive it does not explicitly state this because it obvious and does need to be stated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes 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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Éowyn21 said:

Not really since many people share my opinion on this  "hypsexual asexual" thing. Second of all,  I'm not sure if most asexuals think it's important to officially be protected under the law. It's not like people such as employers are aware whether or not you desire sex. t could be possible for asexuals to be discriminated against under certain circumstances, but it seems unlikely. I don't have a stance on this, but you act as if all asexuals think they should be included under the law. I'm not aware of any laws pertaining to asexuals.

I'm not sure why you aren't aware of any such laws, since I just cited a couple above. I also linked to a paper that discusses in detail asexuality and the law.

It is important to the public perception and legitimacy of asexuality to have it recognized as a sexual orientation alongside other sexual orientations. Legal protections matter. That is why LGBT+ movements have spent so much time fighting for legal rights.

There is a point here where underlying values and motivations may be so different that further discussion is unproductive. Essentially, as I understand it your argument is that – contrary to psychological and sociological models of sexual orientations and legal protections extended to asexuals – you want us to follow a definition unsupported by anything but personal opinion, where the basis for that opinion is dislike of the inclusion of sex-favourable asexuals in the community. And you can't see why, in an LGBT+ context, an argument that rejects both scientific evidence and progressive judicial instruments might encounter opposition?

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

May I suggest that it would be a good idea to actually read the whole paper. It explicitly discusses statutory instruments that extend protections to asexuals:

"This Sub- part therefore considers how asexuality made it into New York law, the merits and stakes of including asexuality in antidiscrimination law, and the prospects for further movement in this direction."

"New York’s Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) defines “sexual orientation” as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or asexual- ity, whether actual or perceived.”"

And

"MADISON, WIS., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 39.02(1), 39.03(2)(ii) (2013) (establishing an affirmative action program to “increase the number and representation of affected and/or underrepresented groups” in city employment and contracting, which covers “sexual orienta- tion,” defined as “the sexual or loving attraction to another person or the complete absence thereof to any other person” which “can span a non-static continuum from same-sex attrac- tion at one end to opposite-sex attraction to an absolute lack of attraction to any gender”)"

As I've said before the problem is not with "attraction-based model, it's the false interpretation of what sexual attraction is.,

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

I'm not sure why you aren't aware of any such laws, since I just cited a couple above. I also linked to a paper that discusses in detail asexuality and the law.

It is important to the public perception and legitimacy of asexuality to have it recognized as a sexual orientation alongside other sexual orientations. Legal protections matter. That is why LGBT+ movements have spent so much time fighting for legal rights.

Theere is a point here where underlying values and motivations may be so different that further discussion is unproductive. Essentially, as I understand it your argument is that – contrary to psychological and sociological models of sexual orientations and legal protections extended to asexuals – you want us to follow a definition unsupported by anything but personal opinion, where the basis for that opinion is dislike of the inclusion of sex-favourable asexuals in the community. And you can't see why, in an LGBT+ context, an argument that rejects both scientific evidence and progressive judicial instruments might encounter opposition?

Okay bye👋

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

As I've said before the problem is not with "attraction-based model, it's the false interpretation of what sexual attraction is.,

Once again, it is important to actually read the paper. Note how it explicitly distinguishes attraction from desire:
 

"First, asexual identity turns on the lack of attraction: “The definition of asexual[] is ‘someone who does not experience sexual attraction.’” Attraction is often distinguished from arousal (or desire)"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...